User:Demiurge1000/Mentoring/Someone35/Course

The Five Pillars
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to eloquently sum up what we're here for. Once you get your head around these five pillars, you will be a Wikipedian and a good one at that. All 5 are covered in my adoption school, though at different lengths. Be aware that I don't know everything and I would doubt anyone who said they did.
 * Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
 * Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
 * Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
 * Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
 * Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.

How articles should be written
The articles in 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 never appear, nor should an editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.

To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Anything written in Wikipedia should be available to confirm by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything not verifiable by seeing it is published elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original.

Reliable sources
So what is a 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 published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are 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 in that topic – so whilst "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, I would not expect it to be authoritative on their full size equivalent.

A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This is a very rare exception – so self publishing is generally considered a no-no. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are 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 – the article really should not be totally based on a direct source like that.

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 issue!

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

Test
This test is going to be based on questions. Some questions will have right or wrong answers, whereas others are just designed to see if you are thinking in the right way. There's no time limit - answer in your own words and we'll talk about your answers.

1) Q - You have just discovered from a friend that the new Ford Escort is only going to be available in blue. Can you add this to the Ford Escort article and why?
 * A - No, friends aren't a reliable source of information


 * Perfect, exactly.

2) Q - A mainstream newspaper has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
 * A - No you can't, because cartoons are usually made for humor and not to insult others


 * Well, I'd agree that you can't, but for slightly different reasons. The modern meaning of cartoon is that they're meant (only) for humor or entertainment, just as you say, but cartoons have been used for political purposes, and other purposes, for much longer. So for example the Wikipedia article on The Bulletin says that it "ran savagely racist cartoons attacking Chinese, Indians, Japanese and Jews, and mocking Indigenous Australians". File:Coolieusa.jpg is described as a "racist US political cartoon" and it's used to illustrate articles on "Sinophobia" (irrational fear or dislike of Chinese) in the Italian wikipedia, but not the English one. It's also used in this page which I guess is an article on the Hebrew Wikipedia?


 * But, the important point here is that, if you or I decide that a cartoon is racist only through our own opinion when we see it, then that's original research, and therefore we shouldn't be adding it to articles. If we can find an independent reliable source that says the cartoon is racist, then we can use it.

3) Q - You find an article that shows that people in the state of Ohio eat more butternut squashes than anywhere in the world and ranks each of the United States by squashes per head. Interestingly you find another article that ranks baldness in the United States and they are almost identical! Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia? Perhaps the baldness article or the butternut squash article?
 * A- I think not because you can't quote other articles from Wikipedia in an article


 * Correct, and also, even if both of the Wikipedia articles were backed up by reliable sources - we can't put together one source with another source and then draw our own (new) conclusion from it and write it in an article. That's WP:SYNTHESIS, which is a form of original research.

4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on ITV?
 * A - BBC no, because as far as I know it is sponsored by the English government, and ITV will be more reliable because it's a commercial channel--  Someone35  13:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, now this is an interesting one. The BBC is supposedly "autonomous" of government control, and, maybe rather oddly since it's under more direct government control than even something like Russia Today, consensus on Wikipedia is to treat the BBC as a reliable source on almost everything. This might be because the BBC - the largest broadcaster in the world - is fiercely independent. BBC controversies includes lots of occasions where the BBC decided to openly oppose the British government, from Winston Churchill denouncing the BBC as "a communist operation", to in 2003, a major scandal over the Iraq war in which "the subsequent suicide of Dr Kelly resulted in an escalation of the conflict between the government and the BBC, during which both sides received severe criticism". Even as far as The Troubles were concerned, when the government banned the BBC (and the commercial stations) from broadcasting words spoken by certain leaders that were considered terrorists, the BBC fought back by broadcasting the video of the leaders speaking (without sound), but using an actor to repeat his words and lipsync them. On the other hand, yes there's certainly something to be said for questioning the impartiality of a state broadcasting organisation on a topic concerning the state in question.


 * The question about the whether the BBC would be a reliable source about ITV has a slightly different focus. ITV is a competitor to the BBC, so they might be seen as having a potential for bias that would prevent them being a reliable source on that.

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
 * A- Only what they posted, not people's comments. If Ben and Jerry say in their Facebook page that they will start selling Lemon and Pumkin ice creams for example then it will be reliable.


 * Yep, that sounds sensible. Although, their Facebook page wouldn't be a reliable source for stating that they're the most successful ice cream manufacturer in the world, for example.

6) Q - A "forum official" from the Daily Telegraph community forums comments on Daily Telegraph's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?
 * A- No because he doesn't represent all of the Daily Telegraph editors and because forums aren't a reliable source of information (also maybe somebody hacked his account and wrote something false)


 * Exactly. I think hacking can probably be discounted, but definitely I would take a "forum official" a lot less seriously than an editorial in the newspaper itself.

7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.hopsandpips.com being used in a beer related article?
 * A - No, because it's a commercial site that tries to convince you to buy beer


 * Indeed, any site that principally exists to sell you something has a question mark over its reliability, especially on the subject of whatever it's trying to sell.

8) Q - Would you have any issue with using the About Us page on Xerox as a source for the history section of the Xerox article.
 * A - No.


 * That's reasonable, but there's some room for caution as well. If the company's own website claims that they were the first company ever to invent some gadget or other, then it would be better to use an independent source for that, than to just accept their word for it.

9) 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 - No.


 * Good. There's even an essay on this one; You don't need to cite that the sky is blue.

Sorry that it took me that long to answer, I forgot to check this page again after I wrote I was ready
 * That's a great start! Please read my notes on your answers carefully, as there's a few extra things to remember. Then I'll put up the next lesson. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

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. I have a script that reminds you to do this if you think you'll forget.
 * 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.

Test
Have a look at the conversation below: Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In

1) Position A?
 * A- Freddie
 * Not quite - look at this one a bit more carefully. The level of indenting one level to the left of Position A is Rod's mate's question (even though he doesn't include a question mark), not Freddie's question. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

2) Position B?
 * A- Jane
 * Again, not quite. At position B, only a single level of indent is being used, so it's a reply to the original person opening the thread (or whoever the last person not to indent at all was) - in this case it's a reply to Rod. (Another way to look at it, is that Freddie and position B are both using the same level of indenting, one indent, so they are both replying to the same thing.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

3) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
 * A- No, maybe he edited wiki before he made an account (using his IP) or maybe he's just good at coding--  Someone35  12:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfect, exactly. Even though we might have suspicions as to who this person is, we should still assume good faith unless there is a really, really, strong reason to do otherwise. This is a common problem in topic areas that have frequent sockpuppetry issues - because there have been so many sockpuppets, sometimes even legitimate new editors are assumed to be sockpuppets. Of course, sometimes they are sockpuppets, but that doesn't make it acceptable for the genuine ones to be bitten in this way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright
Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. It's one of the most important lessons I teach, because not adhering to it can lead to a ban from Wikipedia. I'm hoping to take you back to basics and will be focusing on images. However, a lot of the same concepts apply to other media files and even text too! I'll mention a bit more about that at the end of the lesson.

Glossary
There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. If you are having trouble with any, here's a quick reference.

Image Copyright on Wikipedia
Ok, now if I use a term that's not in the glossary and I don't explain, feel free to slap me. Are you ready for this? Ok. Take a deep breath. You can do it.

Copyright is a serious problem on a free encyclopedia. To remain free, any work that is submitted must be released under the WP:CC-BY-SA License and the WP:GFDL. You can read the actual text under those links, but the gist is that you agree that everything you write on the encyclopedia can be shared, adapted or even sold and all you get in return is attribution.

So, there are basically two types of images on wikipedia.
 * 1) Free images
 * 2) Non-free images

Free images are those which can be freely used anywhere on Wikipedia. A free image may be either public domain, or released under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA. Free images can be used in any article where their presence would add value. As long as there is a consensus among the editors working on an article that the image is appropriate for the article, it's safe to say that it can remain in an article. Free images can even be modified and used elsewhere.

Non-free images, however, are subject to restrictions. Album covers and TV screenshots are two types of images that are typically non-free. They may belong to a person or organization who has not agreed to release them freely to the public, and there may be restrictions on how they are used. You have to meet ALL of Wikipedia's strict conditions in order to use them. (Non free content criteria)

In practise, if it comes out of your head - is entirely your own work, you have the right to make that release. If you got it from somewhere else, you don't. That doesn't mean it can't be used though. You can in these situations
 * If the work has already been released under a compatible or less restrictive license.
 * If the work is in the "public domain" - Very old items, 150 years is a good benchmark
 * If the work is not free in certain circumstances (Non free content criteria summary below, but actually a lot more detailed)
 * There must be no free equivalent
 * We must ensure that the owner will not lose out by us using the work
 * Use as little as possible (the smallest number of uses and the smallest part possible used)
 * Must have been published elsewhere first
 * Meets our general standards for content
 * Meets our specific standards for that area
 * Must be used. (we can't upload something under fair use and not use it)
 * Must be useful in context. This is a sticking point, if it's not actually adding to the article, it shouldn't be used.
 * Can only be used in article space
 * The image page must attribute the source, explain the fair use for each article it is used and display the correct tag

It's a lot, isn't it! Well, let's have a look at the non free stuff. I'm going to suggest two different images. One, a tabloid picture of celebrity actress Nicole Kidman, and the other, the cover of the album Jollification by the Lightning Seeds. The tabloid picture of Nicole Kidman will instantly fail #1, because there can be a free equivalent - anyone can take a picture of Nicole. The album cover on the other hand is unique - there's no free equivalent. It's discussed in the article too, so showing it will be useful in context (#8). The copy we show should be shrunk, so that it can't be used to create pirate copies (#2). I couldn't put it on my userpage though (or even here) (#9)

Get it? Well here are a few more examples.
 * I could upload a publicity picture of Eddie Izzard. Now, the photographer holds the copyright to that particular picture of the hilarious man. I can claim fair use, but the claim would be invalid because you could just as easily go to a performance Izzard is giving and take a picture of him yourself. (That's what happened here) The publicity picture is considered replaceable fair use and so would be deleted.
 * Person X could upload a picture of the Empire State Building from a marketing kit they distributed. This image would likely be copyrighted, and so they claim fair use. But I happen to have been to New York and have a picture of the ESB. I upload that instead and release it into the public domain. The first, copyrighted picture, is also replaceable.
 * For the article on the Monterey Bay Aquarium, I want to upload an image of their logo (visible in no great detail here). I go to their website and upload their version. This fair use is allowable, because no matter where or how they display their logo, it'll be under the same copyright. Since the simple art of scanning or taking a picture of a piece of work is not enough to justify my ownership of the rights to the image, there is no way to obtain a free version of the logo.

Commons
When people refer to Commons on wikipedia, they're generally referring to Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free material. Images on Commons can be linked directly to wikipedia, like that picture just to the right and above. Now, since commons is a free repository, fair use is not permitted. It makes sense to upload free images to commons, so that they can be used by all language encyclopedias.

Copyright and text
So you think you've got your head around copyright and how it applies to images? Well done. Let's see how it applies to text. All the principles are the same - you can only include text which has been released under CC-BY-SA. In fact, if you notice, every time you click edit, it says right there So you are in effect contributing every time you edit. Now, let's think about that non-free content criteria - "No free equivalent" means that you will never be able to license text under it (except for quoting) - as you can re-write it in your own words to create an equivalent. You always, always, always have to write things in your own words or make it VERY clear that you are not. Got it? Good.

Questions
This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations.
 * So am I allowed to upload a picture of the logo of Monterey bay aquarium from their website?--  Someone35  14:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, their current logo (or what looks like their current logo) is already on Wikipedia at File:Monterey Bay Aquarium Logo.svg (I had to use the : before File: there, because this is a non-free ("fair use") image, so if I used it on this page I would be breaking the rules.) It's worth looking carefully at what's on that page. The part under "Non-free media information..." next to "Purpose of use", "Replaceable?", and "Other information", and the section under "Licensing" that starts "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images...", are basically justifications of why Wikipedia believes it's acceptable to use this specific image, whose copyright belongs to someone else, on Wikipedia.


 * The other interesting part is the question of where it can be used. For example, if Wikipedia didn't have an article on Monterey Bay Aquarium, then this image would have to be deleted due to not being used. Likewise, if I decided to also add the logo to the article Monterey, California as an example of tourist attractions in that city, then I would probably get a warning and it would be removed, because this non-free (fair use) image can only be used for the specific purpose of identifying the article about the aquarium itself.


 * Going back to the File:Monterey Bay Aquarium Logo.svg image page, one thing to note is that the vast majority of the legal-sounding jargon in those two big boxes is automatically generated; you don't have to type it in yourself. The procedure works something like this:


 * You go to Upload
 * Scroll down and click "It is the logo of an organization"
 * Choose source file and destination filename
 * Under "REQUIRED", fill in the article it is going to be used in (no needed)
 * Under "HIGHLY RECOMMENDED", fill in the source (usually I just use the URL of the website it came from)
 * For the "Licensing" drop-down, select "Logo".


 * And that should generate all of the jargon in the two big boxes.


 * And yes, literally it is quite often a case of seeing that there is a Wikipedia article about a company or organisation, seeing that their website has their logo, "stealing" the logo from the website, then uploading as above.


 * The one thing to watch out for is that part of the rationale for logos and even for book and album covers, is that the purpose of the non-free use is to identify the subject of the article. So for example, if you created an article that listed ten different books in a particular series, it wouldn't be acceptable to have ten non-free images of the ten books' covers, all in that one single article. (And if the Monterey Bay Aquarium had six different sections each with its own logo, but Wikipedia covered them all in one article, it wouldn't be acceptable to put each separate logo at the top of the section of the article.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

k, got it--  Someone35  07:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, here's the test! Even more so than usual, some of these don't have clear cut "right" answers; it's more a chance to think them through and explain how you view each situation.

Test
Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
 * A- Yes, but not entirely, because most of its content is free to use but not all of it (such as album covers)
 * That's right. Another aspect of "free" is that the information in Wikipedia is freely available, but that doesn't stop people using it commercially. So if some guy with a market stall in, say, Brazil, wants to download material from Commons, burn it onto CDs and then sell them and make big profits, there's nothing to stop him doing so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
 * A- When either you took it and it's not copyrighted or when it answers the non free images criteria
 * Correct on the first part (although I'd also add that you can upload pictures to Commons if you can prove that they're public domain, for example File:Emblem of Israel.svg, created in 1948, is on Commons because it's old enough that its copyright has expired under Israeli law.)


 * Not correct on the second part. But only because we upload non-free images to Wikipedia, not to Commons. Commons is for free media only. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Q3) You find music displaying this licence (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
 * A- Yes
 * Ah, this is a bit of a trick question - or at least, a tricky question. That license says "You may not use this work for commercial purposes" - so it's not free enough to meet the requirements that Commons has for free media. Basically, thinking back to what I said about question 1, music under this license means that the guy with the market stall in Brazil can't burn it onto CDs and sell them, so it's not good enough. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Q4) A user uploads a poster which is a composite of all the Beatles album covers. Can he do this? It is his own unique composition.
 * A- Yes but it's still a non free image so he can only use it in the Beatles article
 * Correct that it's still non-free (since taking several copyrighted things and combining them in creative ways doesn't stop the result still being copyrighted). However, I think it would be very hard (probably impossible) to come up with a fair use rationale that would justify using such a non-free composite on the Beatles article. The article is not about the albums (as such), so justifying it by saying the image was used to identify the subject of the article, just wouldn't work. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
 * A- No, because there are free images that can replace it
 * Correct. We can't use a non-free image if free ones are available (or even possible). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
 * A- Yes, if it's not copyrighted, because most chances are that Wikipedians don't have a picture of him
 * Well, it's worth saying that most or even all press images are still copyrighted. But, the argument here is that, if no free images of the prisoner exist, then it's going to be impossible to take a photo of him, therefore using a non-free photo under fair use is acceptable. On the other hand, some fair use experts might disagree! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Q7) You find an article that matches a company website About Us page exactly. What do you do? You check the talk page, and there's no evidence that the text has been released under WP:CC-BY-SA
 * A- You should either rewrite it or delete it
 * Exactly. The text on the company website is copyrighted (even if it doesn't say so), and we can't paste copyrighted text into Wikipedia even if it's the company's representatives themselves that are pasting it. If they really desperately want to use text that they own the copyright to, we can point them to Declaration of consent for all enquiries (which can be used for text as well as photos and other media) for them to confirm officially that they're prepared to license the text in an acceptable way. Of course, normally it's better if they (or we) re-write it in different words anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
 * A- Yes, because some texts are copyrighted (although I'm not sure that you can copyright text)
 * Well, in fact most texts are copyrighted. This is why, if we copy-and-paste text from a news website or a newspaper into Wikipedia, it must be both quoted with quote marks and attributed; the only other alternative is to completely re-write the facts in our own words (but then still attribute the source of the information).


 * But the focus of this question is on moving a Wikipedia article by copying the text from the old article name, and pasting it into an article at the new name. The reason this is frowned on, is that it means that the attribution (who added what - the edit history) from the old article, is not carried over into the new article. And proper attribution is one of the requirements of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses that text contributions are under. In other words, any editor has the right to edit, change, or expand upon text that was contributed by any other editor; but only if the attribution to the original editor is preserved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Q9) A final practical test... Go. Have a snoop around some wikipedia articles, see if you can find an image which is currently being used under "fair use". Come back and link to it (using File:IMAGENAME. You must get the : before the File name, as we cannot display the image here!)
 * A- An image I uploaded, File:Reykjavik's-church.jpg, and apparently the building I pictured is copyrighted so it is now under fair use
 * Ah, yes, I remember that one! Bizarrely, it's not only Iceland that has crazy restrictions on freedom of panorama - the same applies in France, Italy and Greece too. In the USA, freedom of panorama is permitted for buildings, but not for works of art.


 * There was a bizarre case where the article Throne of Weapons was due to go on the Main Page as part of Did you know, complete with a photo of it. British law says that "it is not an infringement to take photographs of buildings, sculptures, models for buildings, or works of artistic craftsmanship permanently located in a public place or in premises open to the public. This does not apply to two-dimensional works such as posters", so the photo was on Commons. But, U.S. law doesn't allow the same rights for photos of works of art, so there were objections over it going on the Main Page. Crazy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very like to end up in a dispute. This becomes more and more likely as you get into more contentious areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more evocative the subject - the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious. I'm going to go through the different methods of dispute resolution there are on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth taking.

Simple Resolution
No. I'm not expecting you to back down. You obviously believe what you are saying, and there is nothing wrong with that. What you can do though is attempt to resolve the dispute. How??? I hear you ask.

Firstly assume good faith, remember the person you are in a dispute with is also trying to improve the encyclopedia. They are not trying to deliberately damage the encyclopedia. Try to see things from their point of view and see if you can both come to a compromise.

Keep calm. There's no urgency to the change you are trying to put in or take out, it will wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to fight by editwarring to keep your preferred version there is a large chance 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 Rerverts 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 in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right. You've heard the phrase "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" right? Well, this pyramid explains the different forms of disagreement. Attacks on the character of an editor is 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 realise that you have a choice. Your comment will generally go one of two ways 1) it will address the editors argument and put forward a counterargument which the opposing editor will be able to understand 2) It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama.

Accusations of attacks, bad faith, WP:OWNership, WP:VANDALISM or any number of negative suggestions are going to fall into (2). If there are issues with one of these problems, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, walk away and have a cup of tea. Play a game of "racketball". Whatever you do to calm down and just not be on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia dispute resolution process
If the simple techniques don't work (and you'd be amazed 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 step in, there is an WP:Editor Assistance notice board. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the situation.

Third opinion
You can get someone uninvolved 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 option to get a third opinion is to go to the project noticeboard associated with the article to ask for an opinion (the talk page lists which projects are associated with the article). 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). There's also WP:DRN which is fairly informal but focuses more on content disputes. The editors involved with all of these processes specialise in resolving disputes.

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 here than 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 to be certified.

Arbitration
I really hope you'll never see this place in a case. It's the last resort, the community has elected its most trusted willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated cases. Have a read of WP:ARBCOM if you like, but try not to end up there.

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

Remember: you could be wrong!
You could be acting against consensus! But as long as you are open to the possibility and have been sticking the top 3 sections of the pyramid, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Just make sure you are aware that at some point you might have to realise you are flogging a dead horse.

Any questions?
Right, here's the test! Rather shorter this time... but questions 2 and 3 need answers that explain in detail :)

Dispute resolution
1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss?
 * A- That somebody makes an edit, then I disagree with it so I revert it, and then we discuss and make another edit again that both of us agree for


 * Exactly. One thing to add is that the discussion may not just be between you and the other editor; since maybe you and him disagree so strongly that you'll never reach an agreement. But either way, after that first revert (from either of you), you both need to take it to the talk page. Maybe other editors will then discuss it too; maybe one of you will need to ask for extra opinions somewhere else. But always, always, avoid edit warring.--Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

2) Assuming that person A puts in an edit, person B reverts, person A reverts... and so on, but both stop short of WP:3RR (the bright line)... who wins the edit war? Trick question alert!
 * A- The person who made the last edit, but nobody really wins it because the day after they make 3 reverts they start it over again
 * Ah, yes, that's it. Edit warring is never productive, and never makes sense - if the contents of articles get decided by who can click the mouse fast enough or who is prepared to keep on reverting the longest, then the contents will end up as nonsense. If it's possible to come to some sort of agreement with the other editor - or with a consensus of editors interested in the topic - then it removes the need to sit there with finger poised on mouse ready to revert.


 * Also, do be careful of thinking "it's a new day now". Even "slow edit-warring" (say, one revert every 48 hours, back and forth) shouldn't happen, and can get people in trouble. Then of course there's articles with 1RR restrictions; I'll not say any more about those :| There's also the possibility of getting blocked for "gaming" the system... if you want until just exactly 25 hours since your last revert then revert again, you can still get blocked. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

3) What is vandalism?
 * A- Corrupting an article, for example removing all of its content and writing "______ rulez11!!!1" or "____ sucks!!!" or something like that


 * Absolutely, those are definitely vandalism. Vandalism does go a bit wider than that too, though. If I go to the article about Benjamin Netanyahu and change his date of birth so that he's 52 instead of 62, as a joke or to see if anyone will notice, that's still vandalism (if I do it knowing that it's wrong) even though there's no removal of content and no rude words involved. Vandalism is deliberate attempts to damage the encyclopedia. To take another example, if I am too stupid to understand Wikipedia's rules on copyright, and keep uploading copyright violations because I don't think they are violations, then that's not vandalism (although I would still get blocked for it.) It's only if I deliberately upload them knowing they're against policy, that it's vandalism.


 * The problem with vandalism is that some editors (mentioning no names...) label pretty much every edit they disagree with as vandalism. I've seen editors who see a new edit by an IP address (unregistered editor), see that it has no edit summary, so just assume it must be vandalism, so they revert it using rollback and give the IP a vandalism warning on their talkpage. Now, if the IP's edit was constructive then that's very very bad... but even if it wasn't a useful edit (for example, if the IP was changing between different national variants of English for no good reason) then it's still not vandalism and it should not be reverted as that, or described as that.


 * Yet another example... If someone adds a warning to your talk page, and the warning is wrong, or unfair, or just plain stupid, then you have every right to remove it. (If they restore it after you remove it, then they are in the wrong per WP:BLANKING, although it's best to discuss that with me, rather than just reverting them right back.) But removing it with an edit summary like "removing vandalism" is a bad idea because the other editor can almost always make the case that in fact they acted in good faith and therefore it's not vandalism. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?
 * A- Editor assistance is the most basic and light form of assistance in an edit war, third opinion is the next step and request for comment involves several non involved Wikipedians
 * OK, that pretty much covers it, yes. The interesting thing is that WP:3O is probably the most lightweight (since it only asks that one extra person comes and offers an opinion), but, for whatever reason, almost no-one ever seems to use it. But the most important thing is to discuss as soon as possible (not revert), and if discussions don't go well, seek input through other methods of discussion (not revert!). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Policies
While Wikipedia does strive to include as much information as possible, there is a practical limit as to what we're going to include as an article. Just because you think your pet cat is the cutest thing on the planet, that does not mean you should create an article about it. There's a whole list of things that Wikipedia is not. Some relate simply to style or formatting, such as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia or Wikipedia is not censored. Most, however, relate to the content of the encyclopedia, and what is considered encyclopedic and what isn't. WP:NOT is an official policy, which means that all articles must adhere to it. If they don't, they're at risk of deletion.

Wikipedia has three methods to delete pages. The first, and by far fastest, is the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. These criteria depict what content absolutely cannot be kept on Wikipedia for whatever reason and must be removed immediately. The most commonly used ones are as follows:
 * General criteria 1 (G1) or G2 - Patent Nonsense and/or Test pages. Commonly created by new accounts, these have no meaningful purpose at all. Mark these pages with the templates db-nonsense or db-test.
 * G3 - Vandalism. Obvious junk that you can understand (and so isn't nonsense) but obviously isn't intended to be the least bit helpful. This includes redirects that get made as a result of someone moving pages around disruptively. Mark these with db-vandalism
 * G4 - Recreation of deleted material. If a page is deleted through an XfD debate (see below) and it gets re-created essentially identically to the previous version, it can be speedied under G4. This does not apply to pages deleted under any other method (although another speedy criteria may fit and can be used), or pages that have been "userfyed" (see below). Tag these with db-repost
 * G10 - Attacks. If a page is created with the apparently singular purpose of attacking someone, it's a candidate for deletion. Mark these with db-attack.
 * G11 - Advertising. If a page is so blatantly advertising (for anything, even a person) that it really doesn't serve any other purpose at all, it can be deleted. db-ad
 * G12 - Copyright violations, or "copyvio"''. If a page meets ALL of these criteria, it should be deleted immediately for GFDL compliance. Tag these with
 * Direct copy of a non-GFDL-compatible website
 * No non-copyrighted content in history
 * All copyvio content added at once by one user
 * No assertion of permission or fair use, or that content is public domain or freely available.

Whenever you mark a page for speedy deletion, it's usually nice to notify the author. Each of the speedy deletion tags shows the proper warning to use - just copy that code and paste it on their user talk page. You are not required to do this, but it usually helps alleviate some confusion on the part of the author.
 * Article criteria 1 or 3 (A1 or A3) - Little to no context OR no content. For articles that provide no useful information about the subject, are completely empty, or consist only of links elsewhere. Note that an article can be as short as a single sentence but still qualify as a stub. Mark with db-empty.
 * A7 - Non-notable subject. An article about a person, group, band, company, or website that does not establish why it is notable. If this is somewhat controversial, consider another deletion method. Mark with db-bio, db-corp, db-band, or db-web.

If the page doesn't fall under a CSD, but you're pretty certain it can be deleted without too much discussion on the issue, you can PROD it. PROD stands for PROposed Deletion. To PROD an article, add the template to the top of the article. YOU MUST include the "subst:" code at the beginning of the template. If you're not sure what that is, means, or does, I'll explain when we get to templates. For now, just do it. This adds a little blue box at the top of the page to indicate that the page is being considered for deletion. If the box remains in place for five days, the article will be deleted. However, anyone can contest the deletion by removing the template. If you still believe the article should be deleted after this happens, you should open a debate at WP:AFD, which I'll explain how ot use in a moment. PROD's also come with a notice for the author,.

Finally, the XfD processes (XfD stands for Anything for Deletion) allow users to debate on the merits (or lack thereof) a particular article and decide by consensus what is to become of it. These are not votes - sheer numbers have no effect on the outcome of these debates. Only reasoned comments are considered towards the result of the debate. The template at right shows all the different types of deletion debates. The most frequently used is AfD, Articles for Deletion. Each XfD page outlines the process for each, which often is somewhat complicated. Deletion review is where users can appeal a deletion debate, and follows similar procedures.

Before anything is deleted, though, one should always check to see if there is any alternative. There are a wide range of cleanup templates that can be used to indicate an article needs attention (templates which we'll cover in more detail later, I'll just give you the link for now). One could always take care of the cleanup themselves. It's also possible there is usable content in the article that can be merged elsewhere, or it's just under the wrong title and needs to be moved. Wikipedia's purpose is to include as much information as possible, so deletion should always be a last resort.

Questions
Any questions or would you like to try the Test?

Deletion
1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD?
 * A If you think that the article can be merged into another article (for example if you think you can merge the article economy of laos with the article laos because the article is short and because there's not much to write about it).
 * Ah, no, for a case like that, you would need to follow the instructions at WP:MERGE ... and neither article would get deleted, the Economy of Laos article would merely get redirected to the Laos article.


 * You still need to think of two examples... first something that would be appropriate for PROD, and second something that would be appropriate for AfD. They do not need to be articles that currently exist... just imagine something. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * k, second example is an article about an unreferenced article about a deputy CEO in a small company that DOES have an article about it and IS somehow notable and that deputy CEO does have a little information about him in the web but not much people know about him and usually can't add to that article so it will always remain badly written with barely any information (so it needs to be deleted but it doesn't fit into any category because it is somehow notable)
 * OK, yes, that would be a good example of an article it would make sense to send to AfD. A great many things that get sent to AfD are things that might otherwise be CSD A7, but they can't be deleted under A7 because the article has a credible claim of importance. (Like, "this deputy CEO won the Snarod Young Businessperson of the Year Prize three years running"). That saves the article from A7, but it doesn't save it from AfD.


 * You still haven't found a correct example of something that would be suitable to PROD, but I have to admit this is a very difficult thing to find! I have managed to delete some things under PROD, but also I've had plenty declined. Often it's an article that it's obvious doesn't belong in Wikipedia, but doesn't fit any speedy criteria, but it seems like no-one is really likely to object to it being deleted. Often this is because the original author hasn't been around for a long time - which is perhaps a bit harsh, but realistic.


 * Just for a slightly fun example of that, I was alerted to a totally fake (hoax) page about a totally imaginary British politician from the 1970s. After a lot of investigation, I and others worked out that the person never existed. One of us then put a PROD tag on the article, because the article creator had not edited for about six months. Just as the PROD tag was about to reach the required time to delete the article, an unregistered editor (IP address) removed the PROD, declaring that "This article is not a hoax, the new world order are attempting to conceal evidence of this mans existence". Even though this was plainly silly, it meant the article couldn't be deleted under PROD, so it had to go to AfD instead, where the consensus was to speedy delete it. Articles for deletion/Nicholas Bridgestock --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * lol, I guess that person was really bored if he wrote a full article about an imaginary politician...

2) Most WP:CSD categories are fairly clear, but one of the more difficult is A7. Describe a situation where A7 would be appropriate :)
 * A Making an article about a market stand that sells vegetables in the market in Basra.
 * That's perfect, yes.


 * A good example to show the difference between AfD and CSD A7, though, is that I used CSD A7 on a family business in the Netherlands that had three employees and made horseshoes. My A7 tag was declined by an administrator, who said that because the article claimed that the business had existed for 90 years, that was a credible claim of significance. So I used AfD instead, and the article was then deleted.


 * The important difference is that an article can be deleted through AfD if consensus shows that the subject of the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. But for an article to be speedy deleted under A7, it needs more than that; there needs to be no credible claim of significance in the article at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are links to five pages, which could be deletable. What would you do if you stumbled upon them and they were actually Wikipedia articles, in mainspace?

3)First
 * A Speedy delete it under A3 or A7 categories.
 * Yes, I would definitely use A7 on this. A3 wouldn't really be appropriate, as the article does have some content. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

4)Second
 * A Either PROD because maybe it's a famous model or speedy delete it under A7 or G11 categories.
 * I don't think PROD is appropriate, because deletion of this is unlikely to be uncontroversial. A7 isn't right because the claims about Paris Fashion Week and the Times Square billboard and so on, are credible claims of significance (even though they are unsourced). Definitely not G11 - the information is mainly biographical, not promotional.
 * But it says the names of many companies and almost half of the article is links to companies' pages
 * That's true, but what you have to ask yourself, is whether this is encyclopedic content, or entirely just promotional content. If the person is supposedly notable because of their work as a model, then it's not unreasonable for the article to list which companies they've worked for. Just as, if there was a short article about a racing driver, it would be reasonable for it to list (and link) the racing teams that he's worked for. Now, this article does seem to be desperately trying to prove notability by listing off companies the guy has been involved with, but while that's suspicious, it's not unencyclopedic in itself.


 * I had a quick look through the current listings at WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions to find a really promotional article. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Infectious Music Ltd is an example; if this were a real live article, it would definitely be in line for G11 if the whole article consisted of things like "continues to inspire the label, a bespoke music company who serve terrific new artists with flare and a point of difference" and "holds hands with the leading tastemakers in popular music to form a small artists based label who value creativity and intuition" - this is just marketing-speak that doesn't contain any specific verifiable facts at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the thing to do with an article like this is to do some searches to see if reliable sources about the person actually exist. If they do, you could add one or two of them to the article. If they do but there doesn't seem to be significant coverage, you could start an AfD (you would say what searches you've done, and what you found). Or you could add a tag to the top of the article (there's also a  tag for articles that are not about living people).


 * One option for articles about living people created after March 18, 2010, that don't have any sources at all (not even external links) is to delete them under the WP:BLPPROD process. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

5)Third
 * A Speedy delete under G3.
 * Well, I would go for G1 - patent nonsense. (Although, always check the article history before using this tag - if someone replaces a perfectly good article with a few lines of gibberish, we don't delete the page, we just revert it back to the sensible version). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

6)Fourth
 * A I don't know much about this subject but I guess that it's either a duplicated article (so I should PROD it) or G1 (because it doesn't have a clear subject and because it is not written well).
 * Here I definitely disagree. Remember if you're looking at new articles (or any articles), your first thought should be what needs to be done so an article can be improved and kept - not thinking of how it can be deleted. The event itself (this particular wartime tragedy) is clearly notable by Wikipedia's standards; the three reference links included, although they're not very good as references, do make clear that a ten ton sculpture was built to commemorate the dead, and that there has been at least one newspaper article about that (although annoyingly, it doesn't show which newspaper).


 * G1 definitely does not apply - "if you can understand it, G1 does not apply". What you could do would be to tag the article with some tags like to indicate the problems that it has; or you could re-write it for clarity yourself. If, after doing some searches for coverage in reliable independent sources, you feel that the event really isn't notable because there isn't significant coverage, you could nominate it at AfD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * k

7)Fifth
 * A Speedy delete under A7.
 * Yes, this is such a weird one that A7 probably fits best (the person supposedly having a "chart-topping" single might be considered a claim of significance, but when taken in context with the rest of the article, it's not very credible). I would also consider G3 (it's a matter of opinion whether it's a blatant hoax, though). Some people might think it fits G10, since the person being described might well be a real person living in "Stocksfied" - although strangely, technically it doesn't actually fit G10, because G10 only covers pages that are entirely negative in tone. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus
Consensus is the way that decisions are made in Wikipedia. You may see the odd !vote (a coding joke, ! means not - confirming that this is WP:NOTAVOTE and then promptly voting), but these decisions are not made based upon weight of numbers, but rather through the weight of the arguments. Consensus should be created through discussion and any member of the community is welcome to enter in discussions. Yes, that means you. You have every right to put forward an opinion, but if your opinion can be based in policy it will hold a lot more weight.

Consensus applies to everything on Wikipedia, from simple article edits (see WP:BRD and the dispute resolution lesson) to large policy decisions. Consensus can also change, it does not necessarily remain the same so if you see something wrong, don't be afraid to raise it. When involved in a consensus discussion, be careful not to fall foul of canvassing, something that is frowned upon. In other words, don't bring in more people to back you up.

There are a couple of exceptions to consensus. Anything decreed from the Wikimedia foundation or through WP:Office actions must be adhered too. Although these are rare, it's worth keeping in mind. Some of the things passed down in the past is that care must be taken over biographies of living people and copyright violations.

Community
The community is anyone who writes and edits Wikipedia. This includes you, me and any user who clicks that little edit button. They need not be registered, which is why you see IP editors. Although some registered editors treat IPs like second-class citizens, there is no reason they should be. I've seen a few reports that show that the vast majority of Wikipedia was written by IP editors. It does mean that the vast majority of vandalism is also caused by IP editors, hence the disillusionment. I'll get onto vandalism in a separate lesson, so don't worry too much about that now.

Policy and guidelines
Everything we do in wikipedia is governed by policy and guidelines, but policies and guidelines were written down once and discussed at length. Oh yes, almost every policy and guideline is based on consensus, leading us right back to the start of this lesson. Policies don't change much; they describe how the community works, and in general that remains fairly constant at the policy level.

Ignore all rules
What? Is this really right? Well, what the ignore all rules policy says is "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it." My personal interpretation is that this a catchall to remind us that we're not in a bureaucracy, that the important thing is the encyclopedia. I've never had to implement it personally, but I do keep it in mind.

Questions
Well, that's that. Do you have any questions on Consensus or policy?

Policy
1) What is the difference between a policy, a guideline and an essay?
 * A A policy doesn't change and a guideline can change sometimes, policies can get users banned, and policies are more important than guidelines that are more important than essays.


 * Definitely right on the last part.


 * It's not only policies that can get people banned, although there are policies that describe how bans should work. In fact, a ban (which is different from a block, remember) can happen just because the community decides to impose it (for example, by consensus in a discussion at WP:ANI or WP:AN). Of course, such discussions should be informed by policies and guidelines.


 * One thing that's a bit concerning is when administrators actually give an essay as a reason for a block. For example, on occasion I've seen people told that they've been blocked because of WP:COMPETENCE. This shouldn't happen - the block is because the person's edits are disruptive, and there doesn't seem any way for them to stop editing in that way - not because they are doing something forbidden in the competence essay.


 * The other side of it is that anyone at all can write an essay. If I write an essay saying that editors from Italy are always disruptive and should therefore be blocked, and an administrator then blocks an editor from Italy giving my essay as the reason, then that's obviously ridiculous.


 * Another difference with essays is that the weirder ones quite often get deleted by WP:MfD, which I don't think would ever happen to a guideline or policy. (A guideline or policy can be got rid of, but it would probably happen by some method that would provide a much wider discussion than an MfD.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

2) Can Policy change?
 * A Yes, if there is a clear consensus that supports changing it


 * Ah, but you just said in your first answer that "policy doesn't change" :-) But no, this answer is fine - for example there was recently an attempt to change the wording of the WP:VERIFIABILITY policy. Huge amounts of discussion, and a consensus on changing it was never arrived at. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

3) In your opinion. Is Wikipedia a bureaucracy?
 * A No, see the page you linked to above for the reason :P


 * Hmm, OK then :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Templates
Templates allow you to post large sections of text or complicated sections of code while only typing a few characters. Templates work similar to regular links, but instead of double square brackets, you use. To call a template, just type the title of the template between the double braces. You don't need to include the "Template:" prefix; the MediaWiki software automatically searches within the Template namespace for what you're looking for. Only if the page you're looking for is in a different namespace do you need to specify it. See below: One template you can use to welcome new users, Template:W-basic, has several parameters which can customize its appearance. Most of those parameters are named, in that you have to specify to the template what the name of the parameter is when you use it. sets the parameter "anon" to "true", which generates a message directed towards anonymous users. The advantage to named parameters is that they can be placed in any order, but they must be spelled exactly right or they will not work. The template also uses an unnamed parameter, one which does not have to be specified when it is put into use. Templates automatically assign a numerical name to unnamed parameters when they are used, starting with "1". sets the unnamed parameter "1" to "message", which is what that parameter is used for in that template. The userbox above can specify the number of states visited with that same unnamed parameter. Unnamed parameters must be in sequential order to work properly, unless you force them to be out of order by using syntax such as. Using "1=, 2=" is also required if the parameter has a = anywhere within (occasionally the case with some external links).

When writing templates, there are some extra tags and codes that have special effects when a template is called.

Conditional templates allow for use of more intricate templates, with optional parameters or different effects depending on what a certain parameter is set to. They use parser functions such as #if: to apply certain conditions to the code. Use of these functions can allow you to create some rather advanced templates, but often get exceedingly complicated and should only be edited by those users who fully understand how they work. Since these are rather complex, they will not be covered in your exam, but if you'd like we can cover them after we've completed the other topics.

I forgot to mention - there are two ways to call a template. Transclusion is simply calling the template as I showed you above:. This displays the template where you put the call for it, but leaves the curly braced call in place so that it's easy to remove. This also causes the template to update every time the page is loaded, if it has been edited or has a time-sensitive variable. Substitution, or "subst'ing" a template, causes the opposite effect. To substitute a template, add the code "subst:" at the beginning of the call:. When this is done, you are seeing the curly-braced call for the last time, because when you save the page, the MediaWiki software will replace that call with the template's code. This causes the template to lock in place - however it was when you called it, is how it's going to be from then on. This makes things a little difficult to remove, though, as instead of the simple template call, you've probably got lines of code that are now clogging up your article. Depending on how the template it written, it may require subst'ing to work properly, or it may require that it is not subst'ed. The page at WP:SUBST gives details on what templates should, must, or must not be substituted. When writing templates, it can also be useful to enclose the subst: code within tags. See below.

This lesson should show you how templates can be really useful for a lot of things. However, we can make templates even more functional and more powerful by having them do different things depending on what the parameters we set are. For more information on that, see the optional lesson on Advanced Templates.

Any questions?
Hmm, I'm not actually sure I understand this test myself :S

Templates Test
Well, this is a bit of fun, isn't it? One of the more difficult things to test.

Well, for this test, there's a page at User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Templates/Test/Template. It's a template! Have a look at it now. Depending on how you call it, different things will happen. So I'd like you to call the template so that it produces each of the texts below. No using subst, just use the parameters of your nice new template.

1) I intend to pass this module! (Template module)
 * A: See User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Templates/Test/Template, what I understood from this test is that I should make that text say these things so that's what I did, I hope it's OK.

2) My name is Someone35 and I intend to pass this module! (Template module)
 * A: Response to WTT: so it this OK?
 * Well, not quite but you've done well to call the template. The idea of a template with parameters is that you can call it in different ways. So, if you called it without a parameter, you'd get answer 1. If you called it with a parameter called "name", then it will include the name (on the version I created - before you changed it).  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * so I should only call a part of it?--  Someone35  10:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

3) My name is Someone35 and I intend to eat a butterfly. (Template module)
 * A:

4) My name is Someone35 and I intend to pass this module! I am really good with templates. (Template module)
 * A:

'NB, to get (4) to work properly... you will have to edit the template. Bwhahahah :D'

Comment from WTT
Ah... You don't have it quite right :) The idea was to teach you how to call the template and how to edit the template to work differently. I've actually created you another template here. If you want to call it you just have to type . It'll look like this:

Right, maybe we should've done this one before we did the previous one. This is an introduction to templates that Worm wrote. There's no test on it, but read through it carefully and let me know if it helps at all with the test on Lesson 7. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Templates for Dummies (and you're not a dummy, so it should help)
Templates are scary but they're also extremely powerful, and so they're worth having as a module. They do involve a little bit of coding, but I'm sure you can manage a little bit of coding... just a little little tiny bit?

Right, well, now you're thinking about doing some coding, let's look at where they're used on wikipedia. Chances are, you've already used them. Anything you put in curly braces is a template. You may have only used them through copying and pasting, but there's a lot that you might have used. ,,  and  are very common ones, along with templated warnings.

What is a template?
So what is a template? Well, it's bit of "wikimarkup" (wikipedia code) which can be used on other pages. You have the option of "transcluding" it (putting the template in curly braces, ) or "substituting" it (putting it in curly braces, with the key word subst  ). If you transclude it to a page, any updates to the template will show on the page - and if you look at the wikimarkup (ie press edit), you will only ever see the curly braces and template name. If you substitute it, you will effectively be copying the template output to the page at the point you press save. Further updates to the template will be ignored, and you will be able to edit the markup on the page.

Where do I find templates?
Wikipedia has a specific namespace for templates. Any template which is used by many people should be held there, under "Template:", so for example the reflist template is held under Template:Reflist. If you use curly braces around reflist the clever wiki software looks at it and relises that it should look in the template namespace.

However, you can over-ride this, by telling it specifically which namespace you want to look in. For example, I could hold a template in my userspace - indeed I do at. The markup sees that it should be looking in the User namespace, and goes there.

How do I write templates?
The basics of templates is just the same as any other page. You can have a text only template, so that the same text can be used on many pages. But that's not where the real power comes in. The real power comes with parameters.

Un-named Parameters
The most basic parameter is (note the three curly braces - not two!). When you use in a template, it will accept the first un-named parameter passed in. Confused? How about an example?

Say I create a template called Template:Magic with the following code. "This magic trick was first performed by "

I could call it by putting and the output would be

"This magic trick was first performed by Worm"

You can go on to add other un-named parameters, and so on. And in this case Worm would be used everywhere a is shown.

Named Parameters
We also have named parameters. They are used the same way as unnamed parameters, but when called you have to say which parameter you are calling. I have a feeling you're looking confused again. Let's do another example.

Using the same template as I created about, Template:Magic I could change the parameter to "This magic trick was first performed by "

I would then call it by putting and the output would be

"This magic trick was first performed by Worm"

Useful for when you're calling many different parameters, say on an infobox.

Default values
Any parameter can have a default value, ie a value if no parameter is passed in. The syntax is.

Using the same template as I created about, Template:Magic I could add a default value... "This magic trick was first performed by "

I would then call it by putting and the output would be

"This magic trick was first performed by someone very clever"

includeonly and noinclude
There are two very useful tags that you can use to change how things appear. includeonly tags will only show when the template is placed. noinclude tags will only show on the template page. So, if you want something to change when it's placed, then the includeonly is useful (perhaps a locked timestamp). If you want something on the template page only, then the noinclude is useful (perhaps for template documentation).

Example? Yeah, I thought so. Let's go back to Template:Magic. If the code is (CURRENTTIME is a magic word, which returns the current time when called. Clever that) "This magic trick was first performed at  the current time"

You could go to Template:Magic and see

"This magic trick was first performed at the current time"

But if you were to call it, you'd get

"This magic trick was first performed at "

Other tricks
There's all sorts of other things you can do with templates, but it gets complicated from here on in. Have a look at Help:Magic words, you'll be amazed at what they can do. I'm going to teach you one more thing before I let you pass this module, and that's the #if: function. It's quite simple really - it works in the following format. where it checks if the parameter "test string" is empty.

So... let's try an example. Template:Magic again. I'm beginning to like it. "This magic trick was first performed by "

Here it checks if the parameter is null, and if it is it changes the text (the reason I've used  is so that when the parameter isn't passed in, it defaults to nothing. Otherwise it defaults to, as in the actual text - , which just gets confusing).

So you could call it by typing and you would get

"This magic trick was first performed by Worm long ago"

or you could call it with a time, and you would get

"This magic trick was first performed by Worm at 4pm"

Ta-da, you've just learnt templates!

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:

Now that that's over with, go do your task. Have fun! (By the way, please ignore new pages, indicated by a bold "N" on the log entry.)
 * Diff 1: Why you think this is vandalism: That guy removed almost the whole article without an explanation.
 * OK, good. Yes, it's hard to imagine that this person intended to improve the encyclopedia with that edit. It does sometimes happen that people blank large parts of pages by accident (or even for a good reason!), but this doesn't seem to have been one of them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Diff 2: Why you think this is vandalism: He added meaningless letters (although he self reverted himself later).
 * Wow, what a weird edit. Now, firstly if people add something weird (just once) and then revert themselves, quite often they are doing an "editing test" - in other words, they are checking to see if it's really true that "anyone can edit". When they discover it is true, they either move on or revert themselves then move on. Opinion is mostly that this is not vandalism... but if they want to do editing tests dozens of times over then of course it becomes vandalism (just about anyone can realise that Wikipedia does not exist to do constant repeated editing tests on). In this case, the addition is so odd that he might have been a person with difficulties who was testing out a new set of keyboard characters or something, in which case it's not vandalism... but who knows. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Diff 3: Why you think this is vandalism: He added a word that doesn't have anything to do with that article.
 * Yes, absolutely. I think it's fair to say that the person who wrote that knows very well that it doesn't belong there and doesn't improve the encyclopedia. So they were deliberately damaging the encyclopedia - classic vandalism.

So, good job, it looks like we're ready to move on - ready for the test? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

Questions
Not much of a test this time, because there's so much to read... but let me know when you are ready :)