User:FormalDude/Mentorship/Random Editor135

Lesson 1: 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 editor's 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?
Let me know what questions you have if any and we'll then proceed to the test. –– FormalDude  (talk)  04:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Test
'''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) 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 you cannot unless your friend is an employee at Ford and is actively working on the new Ford Escort, as your friend is not an official source.
 * ❌ Even if your friend was an official source, Wikipedia requires content to be sourced to a reliable published source–not word of mouth.

2) 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 - On the first part, you could include the racist cartoon on the newspaper's Wikipedia page as a section about racism, especially if the newspaper has a history of racism. On the second part, there are likely so many examples about racism on that article that it would be unnecessary unless it is a very large newspaper company such as USA Today or The Wall Street Journal.
 * ❌ It couldn't be included at either (even if it was a very large newspaper) unless it has been described as racist in a reliable published source.

3) 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- Revised Answer: I would say no because it is an utterly useless fact that means nothing. Would I add it though? Yes that would be pretty funny, I'd add it to the Ohio article.
 * : This question could have been worded better. It is trying to get at whether or not you could add content about a correlation between baldness and butternut squash. What do you think and why?

4) 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 - I would consider the BBC a reliable source on The Troubles as it occurred between their home country of the UK and Ireland. However, they would not be a good source of news on ITV as that is their rival and they would want to make themselves look better than their rival.

5) Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
 * A- Yes as it is their official Facebook page managed by the company, and would therefore be a reliable source on Ben and Jerry news.
 * ✅ Per, SELFCITE it is a reliable source only for uncontroversial content about Ben and Jerry's.

6) 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- I don't really have a train of thought for this one, but something in my gut is telling me no. So that is what I'm gonna go with.
 * ✅ Online forums are what we would call user generated content and that is never reliable.

7) Would you have any problem with http://www.amazon.co.uk/ or an "iTunes" link being used in a music-related article?
 * A - If they are links to listen to or buy the song the article is about, no, otherwise yes.
 * ❌ On a music-related article that would a promotional source, which is not allowed.

8) 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, it is from the company itself, and is therefore a primary and reliable source.
 * ❌ Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary. Self-published sources can only be used within the strict guidelines of WP:SELFCITE.

9) 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, you don't need a source. Also, are we sure that editor has ever been outside?
 * ✅ This is called the WP:SKYISBLUE rule. –– FormalDude  (talk)  05:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Communication

 * If you wouldn't mind, in the future please notify me with a WP:PING in the communication section each time you complete a task. I've graded your test, not a bad start. Please see my comments, respond as necessary, and let me know if you have any questions. We'll then move on to the next lesson. –– FormalDude  (talk)  05:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now that you tried to ping me on the talk page. It didn't work because you didn't use the template, and you didn't sign your comment. –– FormalDude   (talk)  05:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * &lt;nowiki&gt; no problem, also I revised my answer on question 3, as it says additional information needed. I do have a question though. Why is question 5 correct as a self cite but 8 isn't? Random Editor135 (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Question 5 and 8 could have gone either way. The point is that you can only WP:SELFCITE basic, non-controversial information. If you're ready to move on, the next lesson is posted below. ––FormalDude (talk)  09:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've completed the lesson 2 test, if you are ready to move on. Random Editor135 (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've completed the lesson 2 test, if you are ready to move on. Random Editor135 (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Lesson 2: 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?

No questions. Also, I would like that script. Random Editor135 (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it looks like the script no longer exists, sorry. Test is posted below. ––FormalDude (talk)  22:32, 21 December 2022 (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's Mate

2) Position B?
 * A- Rod

3) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
 * A- not without further evidence. They might just be good at templates.

Lesson 3: 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 practice, 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 person. 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 her 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 pretty complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations. ––FormalDude (talk)  20:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Phew! Longest lesson yet! I think I got all of it. I'll try my best to soak all of that up. Random Editor135 (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Great! Whenever you're ready, I've posted the test below. ––FormalDude (talk)  18:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Test graded. Let me know if you have any questions or if you're ready to move on. ––FormalDude (talk)  03:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have completed the test, and I don't have any questions. I find it funny though that my answers are in a checkerboard pattern of right-wrong-right-wrong. 16:26, Random Editor135 (talk) 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Test
1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
 * A- Yes. It does seem free.
 * ✅ The interesting thing here is that there are different meanings of the word free. Free - "you don't have to pay for it" and Free - as in "freedom". Wikipedia endeavors to be both and does a pretty good job overall.

2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
 * A- When it is non-replaceable, useful, and link back to the source.
 * ❌ You also must have explicit permission to use the content or the content must be your own.

3) You find music displaying this license (non-commercial). Can we upload it to Commons?
 * A- I would say no. This would most likely count as a commercial use.
 * ✅ Images uploaded to Commons must have a free license that permits commercial reuse.

4) 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- It is a compilation, which is a derivative work. He should be able to do it.
 * ❌ It's a derivative of copyrighted works, and therefore cannot be uploaded.

5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
 * A- No, as you could just go take a picture of him when he leaves his pope palace.
 * ✅ Press images are almost always copyrighted.

6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
 * A- Yes, as you can't go to the prison where he is being held, under normal circumstances at least.
 * ❌ Press images are almost always copyrighted. If the press used a public domain image, as many mug-shots are, you could use it, but an image from the press photographer would be copyrighted.

7) You find an article that matches a company website About Us page exactly. You check the talk page, and there's no evidence that the text has been released under WP:CC-BY-SA. What do you do?
 * A- Report it for further examination.
 * ✅ Add the tag to the article to attract the attention of experienced editors.

8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
 * A- Is this referring to the previous question?
 * ❌ A cut-and-paste move is when an editor copies text from an existing Wikipedia article and adds it to another Wikipedia article without proper attribution. Wikipedia is free and its text can be reused, but you cannot copy and paste text from one page to the other because the page history of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages. This is highly undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons.

9) 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- File:1981BillPaul.jpg

Lesson 4: 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?
Just checking in, are you ready to move on? –– Formal Dude  (talk)  13:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm so sorry, yes! I was locked out of my account and didn't have the time to log back in.
 * Test posted below and I put the next lesson as well for when you're ready. As a reminder, pings will not send unless you sign your comment. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  03:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm trying. The signing thing won't work. Random Editor135 (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Test
1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss?
 * A- One editor makes a bold edit, a different editor reverts the page as they disagree, and then they discuss with each other.

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- Neither of them. Alt Answer: The one who isn't blocked.
 * ✅ Nobody wins an edit war.

3) What is vandalism?
 * A- Editing, which is meant to defeat the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to create a free encyclopedia.

4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?
 * A- editor assistance: experienced editors provide solutions.
 * third opinion: a third person steps in to give an opinion.
 * request for comment: getting a larger portion of the community to look at it than 3O.

Lesson 5: Deletion Policies
While Wikipedia strives 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 - Article that does not indicate the significance of the topic. An article about a person, group, band, company, or website that does not credibly indicate its significance. An indication of significance does not have to be supported by reliable sources, just plausible. 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"?

I don't have any questions, but I do have a request: My school has blocked images on Wikipedia with Error 403: Forbidden. So if possible, please try to make things a bit more text based. Thank you! Random Editor135 (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do, test is posted below. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  05:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Graded, please see your results and let me know if you have any questions. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  16:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have any questions, seems pretty clear. Random Editor135 (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Test
1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD?
 * A - A page that falls within the WP:NOT could be put under PROD, and if someone contests it, use AfD.

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 - A7 would be appropriate in the case of say, an article about Jeff Bezos, where it says something like "Jeff Bezos is a rich person."

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

3)First
 * A - Mark is as PROD for G3: Vandalism.
 * ❌ It should be nominated for speedy deletion WP:G3. Proposed deletion is not a speedy deletion.

4)Second
 * A - Mark it as a stub article.
 * ❌ This article has no references and should therefore be moved to draftspace or at the very least tagged for having no references.

5)Third
 * A - Mark it as PROD for G1: nonsense.
 * ❌ PROD is not speedy deletion.

6)Fourth
 * A - Mark it as PROD for A1: Little context.
 * ❌ PROD is not speedy deletion.

7)Fifth
 * A - Mark it as PROD for G3: Vandalism.
 * ❌ PROD is not speedy deletion.

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 rarely if ever 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? –– Formal Dude  (talk)  07:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

That seems fine. I am so sorry I took this long to respond, I thought I had already replied. ––Random Editor135 (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)