User:Demiurge1000/Mentoring/Thine Antique Pen

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.

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

The test!
OK, you've mentioned on my talk page that you're ready. Soooo.... here is the test. As it says, remember to think about each question properly - what's needed are explanations of what you think and why you think it, not just quick short answers. It's fine to answer a few questions one day, save it and do the rest another day...

Five Pillars
This test is going to be based on questions. One word "Yes" or "No" answers are unacceptable. I want to see some evidence of a thought process. 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 - If only your friend said it, then no. It is not a Reliable Source, however, if you can find evidence of this (news, ford's website etc...) that would be fine.
 * OK, good. Companies are not always good sources for information about themselves, but in this case, they are the people making the car, so if they say they're only going to make it in blue, then it's fine. A friend or a rumour, of course, are nothing like reliable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 09:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

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 - I would believe not. The image would most likely be copyrighted, and if not, it would not be used for the correct purpose.
 * OK, good to see that there's concern about copyright (which there would be). However, what is the correct purpose? If you see that the cartoon is clearly racist, is it worth mentioning on the article about the newspaper? It has published a racist cartoon? Or on the article about racism, to show an example of a newspaper that has published a racist cartoon? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I say 'the correct purpose' - if it was intended to be racist, then it could be published here if there was no copyright. However, if it was not intended to be racist, and just intended to be a cartoon, then no. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 09:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a bit more complicated than that. If an independent reliable source (or, preferably, several!) say that the cartoon is an example of the newspaper being racist, then we could certainly consider using it on the article about the newspaper, and perhaps even about the racism topic as a whole.


 * Have a look at the three images in the section Racism - one poster, one photo of a sign, one newspaper cartoon; all of them racist and (presumably) intended to be so by their authors. Wikipedia is including them as examples of racism, not including them in order to be racist. That's not to say we should be reckless in including potentially offensive things, but if reliable independent sources support their inclusion, and the media in question is either fully free or permitted under WP:NFCC, then Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

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- If you can verify it with more than one reliable source, then yes. However, I would not as it could be an issue.
 * First, why could it be an issue? Second, the issue here is really whether you can mention it if it was you that noticed two reliable sources - one of them says some state is top for baldness, the other says the same state is top for squashes (I think this is a vegetable). Can you combine the two in an article? If not, why not? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The squashes and baldness are completley different things, baldness is something that happens to living humans over time, however on a squash? No. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 09:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's true, but it's our analysis of whehther the two things can be related. If a respectable scientific journal published an article saying that they'd researched the connection and that the baldness was indeed related to excess consumption of squashes, then it could be mentioned (even if we personally think it's a bit ridiculous).


 * The point the question is trying to make is that we can't make our own analysis of these two separate sets of facts (the squashes statistic and the baldness statistic); because that would be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.


 * (Incidentally, the closest thing I can think of that actually is discussed by independent reliable sources, is that North Korean children being on average much smaller than South Korean children, is, supposedly, the result of the different political systems in the two countries.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it for a little, they could be on the article, per what you say above. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? Would you consider BBC news to be a reliable source on its rival, ITV?
 * A - BBC News is an okay source, however there was an incident on one news website where an editor posted incorrect information. BBC is the biggest broadcaster in thr world, but I would need it to be backed up with something else.
 * Backed up always, or just sometimes? What decides it? What about if you see this article - can it be used as a source on that subject? If not, why not? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It could be used as a source - but it is about the rival company. You would need some evidence like Google Finance or Yahoo! Finance to back it up as well. Maybe even ITV if they had a story on it. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 09:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, good. Personally I would trust that BBC story as a source (they would be very careful not to get something like that wrong), but as you say, it's great to look for a second source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. :) --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
 * A- I believe not. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and some Facebook pages you need to log in to see. Also, any user can post a comment there, so no.
 * Does WP:PAYWALL affect your answer? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. Also, Wikipedia is free for anyone, Facebook is 13+. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 09:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the point about WP:PAYWALL is that it doesn't matter if a source requires signup or a payment or even requires access to exclusive university libraries. So long as in theory someone somewhere can check it if they really wanted to, then it's acceptable as a source. That's WP:VERIFIABILITY.


 * The exceptions to that only start if someone says something like "well I have a private letter from this person, that was only sent to me and was never published, and you can verify it by arranging to meet me in Tokyo sometime next week and I'll show it to you". No good, because if Wikipedia is still around in ten years, and someone wants to check it then, who knows where this letter will be by then?


 * (Sometimes people who desperately want there to be an article about themselves or someone they know, will scan in all the letters that supposedly-important people have sent them, saying how wonderful they are, then claim that these are sources to prove their WP:NOTABILITY. This isn't really any good either, as the letters still aren't independent reliable - and published - sources.)


 * You're quite right about Wikipedia being different from Facebook in the minimum age it requires, but, just like a paywall, that makes no difference either. Because, even if a source is only available on a 13+ website, it's theoretically possible for someone who is twelve years old to verify that source by asking a parent or guardian or teacher or librarian or something.


 * It gets a bit more complicated with this particular question, too. If there's some confidence that this really is the official Facebook page of Ben and Jerry the company, then, just like their own website, things posted by that account (not just on that Facebook page) are a reliable source for what they claim about themselves. But of course, it doesn't count as an independent source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * About the private letter thing, I once saw an AFC submission ages ago which said something like 'the author of this article had an interview with this person(forgot name) and said the following...' I suppose overall.

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, as it is a community discussion.
 * OK, good. This is a very confusing question - but I think your answer has it about right, because the Daily Telegraph might appoint a whole variety of people to make comments or perform moderation in their forums, but the editorial "stance" of the newspaper can only be seen by what it publishes in its editorials. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 09:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

7) Q - Would you have any problem with beerbarrels2u.co.uk being used in a beer related article?
 * A - Yes, it would be like an advertisment to me. As that website is trying-to-sell-you-something, I would remove the content.
 * OK, good, I agree. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 09:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

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 - I would back it up with something else, other than an About Us page, which often has a WP:POV and a WP:COI.
 * Well, strictly speaking the POV and COI policies only apply to cases where people working for or with Xerox might edit pages on Wikipedia, but on the principle you are exactly right; such material can be used, but needs support from independent sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 09:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

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 - If the editor goes on about it and has a rant about it, then I would just find a scientific source to end the discussion. However, if it is an one-off incident, I would revert the content.
 * That's interesting. How would you revert him? What would you say? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if it was on an article, say Sky and he started a rant on the talk page, I'd just say something like Sky and tell him/her to read that. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 09:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, yes, if the references already state something different to what the editor is claiming, then you would be right in pointing that out to him.


 * There is also WP:BLUE. This is only an essay, and it points out some things rather different to what this question is hinting at. But it is worth reading - carefully! - because it makes some very good points.


 * One more general point it makes is that you don't just add tags or templates because you can, and you don't just add tags or templates because you think something is not so good. You need to think carefully about every single template or tag you add. Can you explain why it's there? Can you point to which policy justifies it being there, and explain why?


 * Some templates, like the coi and npov templates that you put on Justin Bieber on Twitter the other day, pretty much require you to explain your reasoning for them on the talk page of the article. If you can't do so, best not to add those templates!


 * This, for example, is my slightly lame attempt to explain my addition of a NPOV template on an article that I didn't know much about and probably wouldn't have time to do much more editing on. I did, however, ask the person complaining about the article to come back to the talk page and explain his concerns there - so at least I tried to start a discussion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay! I still think the Justin Bieber on Twitter article should be merged with Justin Bieber anyway. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, good progress on this lesson! Sorry for being a couple of days late in replying. (You'll find I am often a couple of days late...) I have again added some additional detailed notes on some of your replies. Please go back through the questions and read these in detail - slowly, carefully. And the linked pages as well :) There is quite a lot, so you may need to allow a lot of time for it, or maybe not do it all in one go.

Let me know here when you have done that (there's no need to answer each one separately this time, unless there is something specific you want to add.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, good job on the first lesson - there is a mini-barnstar on its way. One small thing to note - thinking that some JB article should be merged with some other JB article is an opinion - in fact, it's an opinion shared by lots of other people. But, for you to add a tag based on that opinion, then you have to be able to justify it (by arguing according to policy, not just opinion) on the talk page. If you can't justify it properly on the talk page - then don't add the tag.

Here's another lesson. Read my extra note above enough (and think about it), read the lesson below, and let me know when you're ready for the next test. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2012 (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.

Questions
Any questions?
 * Nope. I understand what you are saying above and about wikiquette. Thanks! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

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- Rod

2) Position B?
 * A- Rod's Mate

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, you shouldn't, unless there is more sockpuppeting evidence. He might've just read how to edit and read about wiki markup.

OK, you've got question 3 right! Have a look at questions 1 and 2 again - are you sure? Look at the level of indenting - remember that you indent one level extra, over the indenting of the person to whom you are replying. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be switched around? A = Rod's Mate - B = Rod? --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's it, perfect. Right, next lesson! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2012 (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 cannot be used on Wikipedia.
 * 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, and therefore can't be used on Wikipedia.
 * 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, take a copy of their logo, and upload it to Wikipedia. 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. So, if it meets all the other criteria as well, it can be used on Wikipedia.

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.
 * I once had a minor issue with this, and I still have a question. Is a rationate template required on an Image page? Or could you write a paragraph-or-so stating why it is free? --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 20:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please answer. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 09:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Tom, I got a bit wrapped up in other things, and wanted to reply to this properly in detail (which will take me a fair bit of time). I'll get back to it soon I hope. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, your question is a bit confused - but I guess that's because image copyright nonsense is all so complicated. First, as far as I know, all images need an image tag of some sort. First, it divides whether an image is properly and totally free (and therefore can be used on Wikipedia) or is non-free (and therefore can only be used on Wikipedia under the very limited restrictions that "fair use" has on Wikipedia).


 * All properly free images have an image tag or license tag. So for example an image might be free because I took it myself with my own camera and I choose to license it under a free license, or it might be free because I found it on a flickr page and on that page it had a free license (note - not all flickr licenses are free enough to allow the image to be used on Wikipedia!), or it might be free because evidence of the copyright owner releasing it as a free image has been emailed to OTRS (Declaration of consent for all enquiries gives ideas on how to do that), or it might be free because, as you discovered already, some U.S. agencies such as NASA (the U.S. armed forces are another good one) make all of their images free enough for Wikipedia. Some are free because they are so old. All of these require a tag of some sort saying that this is the reason why.


 * Non-free images, used under "fair use" are completely different! Here we are basically saying, "we know that this image belongs to someone else, and we're not allowed to use it, but there is such an overwhelming reason to use it, that we just have to". Well, it's quite obvious, if our reason is so overwhelming that we're almost stealing someone else's work, then we absolutely must explain what our reason is. Right? So yes, a rationale is required every time. ABSOLUTELY required! I can't steal something you own and use it for something else, without at least telling you what my very good reason is.


 * See what I mean? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. I'm trying to ask if the massive horrible rationale template has to be used, instead of a more detailed section of writing on why we can use it. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, then I have misunderstood the question. Do you mean the sort of rationale that is at this link, or something else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that rationale. Also, you didn't misunderstand it, as that was also a question I wanted answering. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then, yes, we always go to that level of detail. If you had a brand new camera, and I broke into your house to "borrow" it because I thought there was a really good reason for doing so, wouldn't you want me to make clear a really good reason why I thought so? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose. :) --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 22:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You suppose? *smack* :) OK here we go....

Test
Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
 * A- Although it is called 'The Free Encyclopedia' &mdash; it is not. The content is free to read, adapt and more, but some of the images are under copyright, meaning that everything is not free.


 * Exactly - that's how things are. Although some people, like the author of the essay Veganism parable, feel that the inclusion of all this non-free content is spoiling the point of trying to build a free encyclopedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
 * A- If the image is NOT of fair use. It can be uploaded if work of NASA, US Gov, yourself (with a free liscence), Flickr (with free creative commons liscence), not under copyright or public domain.


 * That's about right, although mentioning fair use is an unusual way to phrase it. The point is that the images are free, so they don't need to be under fair use. Sounds good. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Q3) You find music displaying this licence (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
 * A- Yes, you could.


 * Ah, no, actually you can't, this is kind of a trick question. "You may not use this work for commercial purposes" means that the image is not fully free. It therefore cannot be uploaded to Commons. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't know that, thanks for telling me that! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:01, 17 May 2012 (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- If the album covers are all low resolution, he states that with a rationale, then yes. However, not to commons.


 * Hmm, this is a tricky one. I'm not actually sure what could be a convincing non-free rationale for using such an image. There wouldn't be one for using it on any article about a single Beatles album, and it probably isn't justifiable to use it on the article about the Beatles themselves either.


 * However, I did find File:John conor 05.JPG which is a non-free image done in a similar way - on the other hand, I'm not sure that its rationale would be very convincing to a sceptic! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose it wouldn't. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
 * A- As the press is often under copyright, not to commons. Upload a low-resolution one here with rationale.


 * What would your rationale be, though? Surely it's possible for a free image to be taken of the Pope, and therefore the image would be replaceable, and therefore it fails one of the non-free content criteria? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If it was for the Pope at a specific event, then yes. However, a free one would mean the non-free should not be used? --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, hmm, this is an interesting one. Let's think about this carefully.


 * First, let's say there's an article like Pope Benedict XVI. I don't think this could include a non-free image of the person, because he's still alive so it should be possible to take a free image of him.


 * Second, let's say that the article Pope Benedict XVI had a section entitled "2009 visit to Israel" (it almost does already, but not quite). If no free images were taken of the Pope in Israel in 2009, would it be acceptable to upload a non-free one? The answer is probably not, because the article already has images showing what the guy looks like, so unless there is some overwhelming reason (supported by sourced text in the article itself) that there absolutely must be a separate image showing what he looked like in Israel (e.g. he dyed his hair red for that visit, and there was a massive international scandal about it - didn't happen), then it's no good. We can't justify using a non-free image just to prove or show that he was there.


 * Third, let's say there was an article Pope's visit to Israel in 2009. Can we use a non-free image of him there if no free ones exist? (It's very likely that a free one does exist, but let's pretend it doesn't for this example.) I'm not 100% certain, but I am guessing the answer would be no. We already have images of what the man himself looks like (elsewhere), we have images of what Israel looks like (elsewhere), we have images of what Israeli people look like (elsewhere), so we can't use an image of this visit unless there is something massively important about the visual appearance, that is also discussed in detail (and sourced) in the text of the article.


 * The point of this rather convoluted example is that use of non-free content on Wikipedia really is very strongly controlled, we mostly can't use it at all except in very specific circumstances. Annoying, yes (the BBC will always have an image for an article like this!), but best to obey it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do suppose that that is the case then. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 20:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
 * A- Per Q5. "As the press is often under copyright, not to commons. Upload a low-resolution one here with rationale."


 * Well, what difference does the person being imprisoned on death row make, for your rationale? Would it make more or less difference than for an image of a notable person who had just been imprisoned for 14 days? And why? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say it depends on the condition they are in, and the press story about it. A more notable person would replace the old image though? --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, what? There is no old image. There is a notable person. There is an article about them. There is no free image available. Could we use a non-free image of them, in the infobox of the article about them, (1) if they were on death row, and (2) if they had just been imprisoned for 14 days? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say (1) - as 14 days in prison ain't that much. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 20:28, 17 May 2012 (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- CSD it for G12 if the website does not say anything about CC-BY-SA or GFDL.


 * Great, sounds good! Although, the perfect answer would be to check the history of the article as well (just in case there was a salvageable copyright-acceptable article there previously, and some marketroid has replaced the salvageable version with the copied-from-company-website version.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
 * A- Content could be under copyright.


 * Yes, but more specifically, the specific copyright license that text from other Wikipedia articles is usually under, is displayed under "By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under..." every time you make an edit.


 * So, if we copy and paste from one article to another, we should always mention in the Edit Summary where the text came from. That's called "attribution" - it's the equivalent of having to mention, on the image description page, where on Flickr a suitably licensed Flickr image has come from. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay then. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:01, 17 May 2012 (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- I don't know why but I found File:Minerva logo.gif.


 * Perfect! OK, I need some more feedback from you on a couple of questions, and please read my comments carefully on the rest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yay! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, a few more questions and comments - look for the double bullet like this comment has. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, one last thing! 14 days, or longer, has nothing to do with it. The point is whether a photo of the guy can - or cannot - be taken when he is imprisoned on death row. If someone just got imprisoned for 14 days, then obviously we might be able to photograph them when they come out. Same if they got imprisoned for 7 years! But if someone is on death row, they might die before we can photograph them freely, so maybe (but not definitely) you could say fair use would be ok.

So, yet again, the scary thing about fair use is that we can almost never use it - right?

Read all of the above carefully. Then... ready for the next round? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:07, 19 May 2012 (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?
No questions, to me it's pretty simple. I often look at ArbCom things sometimes. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 20:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good! Although, sometimes I think reading old RfAs can be more valuable than reading arbcom things. Most (though not all) arbcom cases get hugely long, and of course you have to read the whole thing (including all the evidence and the talk page squabbling and the diffs linked to) to get enough of a proper understanding of the whole case to make it worthwhile. Today Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard was quite interesting, though. How an arbcom member reacts to heavy criticism of arbcom!


 * Other good places to watch (and sometimes contribute) include WP:EAR and WP:MCC. WP:BLP is one to handle with great care, but sometimes a new item is a simple case of vandalism that one can fix easily, or even just a misformatted new post that one can tidy up and add an appropriate template or heading to.


 * Right, the test. Not quite so important as copyright, so it's shorter! But answer in detail, please :)

Dispute resolution
1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss?
 * A- Well, first you are the editor being bold. After you have been bold, your edits get reverted by someone else. Then you discuss it with the reverter.


 * Right. On the talk page of the article, of course. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say so. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 19:12, 20 May 2012 (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- B, of course.


 * I think a better answer would be that neither person wins the edit war, because they should not have been edit warring in the first place... and edit wars are not good for the encyclopedia :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay!

3) What is vandalism?
 * A- Adding nonsense to a page, blanking a page/section, adding prohibited images to a page. etc.


 * OK, so would you call this edit or this edit vandalism? Both are section blanking, right?


 * What about this edit, that totally trashes the layout of an article? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The first isn't section blanking, it's content blanking, as it is not a whole section. Two is section blanking. 3 is in good faith, it just needed to be thumbnailed. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 19:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So is the second one vandalism? :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 20:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I can see your thinking here, but really you need to have an understanding of what vandalism is broadly, not try to define it as being specific actions. A wide variety of things (including section blanking) can be vandalism sometimes, but other times not be! So defining it that way doesn't work. So we define it more broadly - vandalism is an edit that is (clearly) intended to make the encyclopedia worse. So spamming the word "poo" throughout an article that isn't about poo is vandalism, but removing that section about some incident with a security guard was not vandalism if we can have a good faith belief that the editor in question thought the encyclopedia would be better without that section there.


 * This distinction causes a lot of trouble, especially if people are using Twinkle or Stiki or Rollback or Huggle to mark things as vandalism that aren't obviously vandalism. It often leads to removal of editor user rights. So it's one to remember - good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia are never vandalism. OK? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay... My rollback was removed for 2 juggle reverts, both sect. blanking, but I marked em as vandalism. -Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 21:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?
 * A- WP:EAR is where someone helps you, WP:3O is for a third opinion on a matter (not for help), and WP:RFC is quite severe, commenting on a users bad actions (or a page, ex. vandalism-only?)


 * OK. RFCs fall into two main types. RFC/U is a request for comment on a user, and they tend to be very long and full of arguments. Other RFCs are on talk pages about an issue to be decided. So for example an RFC could be a part of the huge and lengthy and controversial "pending changes" debate, or it could be a rather short discussion about article content, on an article talk page.


 * An RFC should only ever be undertaken after careful thought about what you're trying to do, and how... and an RFC/U, even more so. (I have participated in arranging an RFC/U, but I only did so after repeatedly being told by administrators that it was the next step forward.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay! --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 19:12, 20 May 2012 (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"
 * Test please! :) --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 22:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion
1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD?
 * A - You would use a PROD before an AFD. Normally I would use a PROD for time to establish notability.


 * I think the first part of your answer makes sense - a PROD is an easier option for where an AfD is not needed. The second part, though, I'm not so sure about. Some people do use PROD this way (to get an article creator's attention!), but you could also say it's rather WP:BITEy - you are basically threatening to delete the article if the creator doesn't do the things you want them to do. What I tend to do in circumstances of, for example, unclear notability, is to add a ((notability)) tag to the article, then leave it a week or two, then if I come back and things haven't improved, then I do my WP:BEFORE research and then do an AfD if appropriate.


 * This is actually quite a difficult question! However, a PROD I put on recently, which hasn't been actioned or contested yet, is on Chandler Lindauer. It just seems to me so clear that no convincing argument for keeping the article can be made, that a second trip to AfD for this article is a waste of the AfD process. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay then! I suppose that an AfD will be. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 22:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, an AfD will be what? Write full sentences and think them out slowly and carefully, I have no idea what you actually meant there :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was typing on my iPhone, blame that. Basically, an AfD will be wrong and a 'waste of the AfD process' --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 07:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

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 - If something is not important at all, or shows no references or notability. Of course, I'd Google Search it first.


 * Perfect, yes. In fact, for some really obvious A7 (like "bob jones is the best footballer in class 2C at wobble high school") you don't even need to Google search.


 * It's worth remembering that "a claim of importance" is a much lower requirement than "establishing notability". So, to think up a random example, if an article says that someone was the British Parachute Regiment boxing champion in 1987, then that's a credible claim of importance. So such an article would not be subject to A7 (even if the claim is not sourced!) But to establish notability (which is where AfD comes into it, not CSD A7) then we need a lot more. An AfD might discuss how significant winning that boxing championship is in terms of notability, how well covered it and the person are in reliable sources, and so on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, okay! --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 22:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I've created 5 pages, which could be deletable. What would you do if you stumbled upon them in mainspace?

3)First
 * A - A7 and a POV tag.


 * Yep. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

4)Second
 * A - Shows signs of notability, Google it for references. If you can't find any: PROD.


 * OK, good. What rationale would you use for the PROD? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Myself, I would use the Twinkle BLP PROD one. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 22:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

5)Third
 * A - A1, just nonsense.


 * I think G1 would be better here. It's not a lack of context, it's a lack of, well, meaning anything at all in any language. So, yeah, patent nonsense, G1. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess so. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 22:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

6)Fourth
 * A - Fix it up a bit. Copyedit it. It would be a good article.


 * Yep, perfect. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

7)Fifth
 * A - Sad story (heh), but A7 or get it userfied to the creator.


 * Well, I think it's important to keep WP:BLP in mind here. This seems to be about a real human being (despite the lack of a last name) and it's really quite negative. So although A7 would probably get deleted, G10 would be better. G10 also has the advantage that it'll automatically blank the page until the CSD tag is acted on or declined. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, okay! I normally used G10 in major circumstances only. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 22:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, quite good. Please read through these comments carefully, and answer the one question I've added. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * One more question / clarification needed! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, one of the topics I gave you specific advice about in your answers in this lesson, you've then proceeded to also get wrong, some time later, in Bmusician's adoption course. Identify which topic that was, and what the problem was. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I know now. a7 --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 13:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, and what was the problem with it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A7 is only about importance/significance. Notability is ranked up higher, which I would use a PROD or go through AFD for it. Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 15:10, 8 June 2012 (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?
 * Nope, no questions! --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Policy
1) What is the difference between a policy, a guideline and an essay?
 * A &mdash; A policy is something that has to be done. A guideline is a suggestion on what should be done. And an essay is what someone thinks should be done, or may help.


 * OK, yes, that's about right. I would say a policy is just slightly weaker than that. And I would also say a guideline is just slightly stronger than that - so for example MOS:BOLDTITLE is only a guideline, but if one constantly ignored it as just a suggestion, one might end up with problems. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

2) Can Policy change?
 * A &mdash; Yes, under !votes I think. I think that ArbCom can change policies.


 * Ah, ok. What do you understand "!votes" to be?


 * Can you think of an example where ArbCom has changed a policy? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. I'm a bit confused in finding the ArbCom thing. WP:MASSCREATION? --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 17:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, close but not quite. Notice at the start of that, it says "The community has decided..." Community decisions are not arbcom decisions, and arbcom decisions are not community decisions. If you click the link, what it takes you to is a discussion at the Village Pump open to the whole community, not just to arbcom. The discussion having been closed by someone who was an arbcom member at some point, was just coincidence.


 * Having looked over some arbcom cases, it looks like arbcom does not set or change policy (I have to admit, I wasn't sure of that until I checked just now). It does come out with some rulings like "All articles related to the subject of Abortion shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014" (gosh that's a long time!), which is a ruling on what will happen to articles - but it's not creating or changing an actual policy. That has to be done by the whole community.


 * Now, you say that policy can be changed "under !votes I think". What do you understand "!votes" to be? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, "!votes" are basically Support, Oppose, etc. Basically, voting for something to happen, like adminship be granted. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 20:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, this is important. I guess this part of the course is not clear enough. Even though percentages of support and oppose are important in RfAs, these discussions are not a vote, just like AfD is (even more so) not a vote. "!vote" does not mean "something a bit like a vote", it means "something which is not a vote". The decision is made by strength of arguments and whether the arguments are based on policy, not by numbers.


 * Of course, at RfA that's a little bit less the case (no-one ever got to be an admin with only 45% Support). But at AfD, if there are twenty !votes to delete an article and only two to keep it, and the two are the only ones based on policy, then the article will be kept. Equally, if there are twenty votes to keep an article and only two to delete it, and the two are the only ones based on policy, then the article will be deleted.


 * AfD, RfA, RFC and other such procedures are never a vote. Even the Support/Oppose proposals sometimes seen at the foul pit of infamy known as ANI, are not votes. They are discussions, and strength of argument (and use of policy) wins, not numbers. Always be careful to say !vote not vote, and always be sure to understand that numerical majority is NOT what decides it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

AARGH. (rage) Okay then! I understand. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

3) In your opinion. Is Wikipedia a bureaucracy?
 * A &mdash; Per WP:BURO, it's not. The rules (policies) are made after discussions.


 * OK, good answer. Interestingly, WP:BURO is a policy - so it is stronger than (for example) MOS:BOLDTITLE. Another thing to think about is that it says that policies and guidelines are not rules to tell us what to do - instead, they are just descriptions of what community consensus has so far agreed should be done. A small distinction, but an important one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2012 (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.

A bit different to some of the other lessons, isn't it? Ready for the test?
 * Yep, ready. I've seen this lesson before anyway somewhere! By the way, You've Got Mail! --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Well, for this test, I've created you a nice new 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 you get the correct result. No using subst, just use the parameters of your nice new template.

1) I intend to pass this module! (Template module)
 * A:

2) My name is Thine Antique Pen and I intend to pass this module! (Template module)
 * A:

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

4) My name is Thine Antique Pen 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'

Right, templates didn't challenge you much, did it? Here's the next lesson... don't be tempted to read too quickly just because some of it you know already :)

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: Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 21:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

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: blatantly obvious. 'Fanny-slapping'...
 * Diff 2: Why you think this is vandalism: Blanking
 * Diff 3: Why you think this is vandalism: Idiotic number
 * Diff 4 (diff section added myself): Why you think this is vandalism: Name changing to rubbish.
 * Diff 5 (diff section added myself): Why you think this is vandalism: This ain't a tour guide.

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 :)
 * Ready... I already had Rollback zapped from me and I learnt then. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 18:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Test please!
 * See above, first. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I left a note there... --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 14:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, here we go. Remember, proper answers, explain in detail what you mean, and then explain why you think so.

Vandalism
Q1) How would you define vandalism?
 * A: Anything that is a deliberate attempt to wrongly change Wikipedia. However, it is best to Assume Good Faith in most cases, unless they are deliberately disrupting Wikipedia. Assuming good faith is the best thing to do, as some editors lack enough competence to edit the encyclopaedia.

Q2) We currently have 4 levels of warnings, have a look at them if you like 1, 2,3,4 - along with an only warning. Do you think we need 4 levels?
 * A:

Q3) Does an admin need all 4 levels to block? How many do you think they need? How many should you have gone through before going to WP:AIV
 * A: Generally, it is often all four warnings. However, blocks can be issued if it is a vandalism-only account.

Q4) When do you think you might use the "only" warning?
 * A: Personally, I would only use the "only warning" when it is a vandalism-only account, and no previous warnings have been issued. Or, if the disruption is too severe, and the other warnings should be skipped.

Q5) Do you think that vandals should be allowed to remove the warnings?
 * A: Per WP:UP, there is no policy prohibiting them to do so, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes a warning/comment from their talk page, it is do not to restore it. I follow this policy.

Q6) Is a copyright violation vandalism?
 * A: I would say certainly not. New editors should not be bitten, for an edit that could have been made in good faith. They are most possibly unaware of copyright violations, and a polite note should be used. However, if they are persisting to add copyrighted material to Wikipedia after having the note, I would say that it is almost certainly vandalism and disruption.

Q7) The vast majority of vandalism comes from IP editors... but the majority of good edits are also made by IP editors. Should wikipedia require registration?
 * A: No, Wikipedia should not require registration. Not every IP is a vandal. IPs are humans too.