User:Go Phightins!/Adopt/Johncheverly

Hi John, and welcome to the Go Phightins! adoption program, part of Wikipedia's adopt-a-user program. You are here coming off a block; congratulations for being unblocked, you had to convince administrators you were willing to be a productive member of the community. Now it's time to live up to that. This course is designed to help you in that endeavor. I may eliminate some lessons that I don't think you need, or I may add some that I think you do need. At the end of the day, what you put in to this course is what you'll get out of it. You will be guided through a series of lessons and tests that will culminate in a final exam that includes both a written component as well as a practical component, where you will make article edits and participate in collaborative discussions. I would estimate that the course will take no more than a month, provided we both keep up with it. To pass a lesson test, you must attain a 75%; 70-75% is at my discretion as is, well, just about everything else in this course. If at any time during the course of the course you act inappropriately, I will not hesitate to request you be re-blocked. If at any point during the course you feel I have acted inappropriately, you are welcome to stop and find a new adopter and, if you deem appropriate, report me to administrators. I trust neither of the aforementioned scenarios will be necessary. Our first lesson is going to be on the five pillars of Wikipedia. When you are ready for the test, please let me know. Good luck! Go  Phightins  !  02:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Lesson one
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to summarize why we're here.
 * 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 while "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, it probably would not be authoritative on the Boeing 737.

A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. Generally, self-published sources aren't considered reliable. 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? If not, I will post the test. Go  Phightins  !

Here goes. . . johncheverly 20:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Test
Here is the test. You have up to one week to complete it once I've posted it, but it shouldn't take more than 30 minutes maximum to complete. I'm looking for thoughtfulness in your answers, and reserve the right to post follow-up questions should your answer be ambiguous or not on the right track. Good luck, and here we go:

1.) Q- You have heard from a friend that Mitt Romney has been appointed the chancellor of Harvard University. Can you add this to Romney's (or Harvard's) article? Why?
 * A-Not based on hearsay alone. It needs to be verified http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V with reliable sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
 * Precisely! 5/5

2.) Q - The Daily Telegraph has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
 * A-No. No.  English Newspapers are not my area of interest.  The English have both a different idiom and a distinct sense of humor from Americans.  I do not feel qualified at this point to make that kind of judgement.
 * Fair enough; I am American as well, but I thought using multi-national references would be better than using all American ones. In any case, I was more asking based on whether you could justify adding something to an article based on your impression alone, which you sort of answered as no, so I'll give you a 3.5/5.

3.) Q- You find an article that asserts that socialists are more likely to get cancer than capitalists, but capitalists are more likely to get diabetes than socialists. Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia?
 * A-No. I would need to check this out with an administrator or another more experienced editor in the socialism, capitalism, and diabetes??? portals.  Also, is the source reliable.  Was it  New England Journal of Medicine Study published in "The New York Times" Health Section, or a ghost written piece in "The Weekly World News"???  Also, it kind of falls under the homeopathy as a broken leg spurious heading . ..

'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.''
 * Right, remember not to lend undue weight to fringe theories. 4/5

4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
 * A-Only if I triple sourced it. Perhaps.  The Sarah Palin contract non-renewal was originally reported by the Real Clear Politics website and then developed through other reporting such as the Daily Beast's Howard Kurtz, etc.  Each time, more information was forthcoming; e.g. we eventually learned she was paid $15.86??? per spoken word during her three years as a commentator on Fixed News.  It started out that " a source close to Palin" said that she was not renewing to pursue other options.  Fox just issued a terse statement saying she was not renewing and they wished her success.  A day later, Kurtz??? reported that Fixed Noise Chairman Roger Ailes did offer a new contract for a fraction of her original three year deal.
 * 5/5, but -1 for calling Fox News fixed news, but +1 for probably being right. 5/5

5.) Q- Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Twitter page a reliable source?
 * A-''Maybe, if it had something to do with Ben and Jerry's, especially the announcement of a new flavor. Guidelines: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.''
 * It's always better to use a press release, or better yet, a third party source, but Twitter is better than nothing, I suppose. Still, look for backup, even if on a flavor release. 4/5

6.) Q- A "forum official" from the Chicago Tribune community forums comments on the newspaper's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?
 * A-No. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this are opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format.  There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs;
 * WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV sheds some light on what you were talking about, however a forum official is unlikely to be the one making official statements on company views, so I doubt it'd be a reliable source. 4/5

7.) Q- Would you object to the "about us" section on say Burger King's website being used as a citation in its article? (Hint: see WP:SELFSOURCE)
 * A-Not neccessarily. Guidelines:''Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.''
 * Right, it depends on what kind of info. we're talking about. "Burger King has served x hamburgers since 2003" is probably fine, but "Burger King's hamburgers kick McDonalds' gluteus maximus on any day of the week" would not. 4/5

8.) 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-Yes. Yes. But he may not be wrong.  This is not my bailiwick, but just because something appears one way, it does not mean it is that way.
 * WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE offer alternate opinions. When in doubt, I say cite it. 4.5/5

johncheverly 00:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Grade: 34/40 (80%)
 * Comments: That's a solid passing grade; good start. If you have any follow-ups, post them in the next 24 hours...tomorrow at this time, I will archive this lesson and post the next one if you don't have any concerns, criticisms, questions, clarifications, etc. Go   Phightins  !  02:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm okay w/ it. It was a first time and I turned it around pretty quickly. The only thing I would say is that I would probably never get involved in the maths and sciences. When I appealed my block, I stated my general areas of interest. I know you were just throwing scenarios but I wouldn't venture into a talk discussion, let alone an edit, on some of this stuff. The only question I have is, in the case of Sarah Palin, is Wikipedia a news source??? Does it have to be posted as it "comes over the wire???" Shouldn't a good editor wait for the thing to evolve before updating a page??? johncheverly 04:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a news source and as such is better to wait until the events are cleared up in the media prior to adding them here. That said, IPs and new accounts often add things right away, so as experienced editors, we need to make the best of it on the fly. You're right, these are random scenarios; I am mediating a case over the Golden Ratio and it honestly is way over my head. I'm just trying to keep it civil. I'll get to posting the next lesson, a pretty easy one, tomorrow (hopefully!) Good work, thus far. Go   Phightins  !  04:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Lesson two
You've successfully completed the first lesson. I'll warn you, that was the easiest one. I'm including the next one as a quick review, as I think you probably already have a decent grasp of this, but review will never hurt anyone. Lesson 2 is below:

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.
 * 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.

Assuming good faith is one of the most important points of Wikipedia (as you may have noticed by my numerous mentions). The test will focus primarily on assuming good faith, threading, and on more assuming good faith. Do you have any questions? If not, let me know, and I will post the test. Thanks. Go  Phightins  !

Do I have up to a week to complete this test as I did the last one??? If so, please post. johncheverly 23:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Test
A week is an approximate guideline; if you let me know you'll be on vacation (or whatever other reason you won't be at the computer) I have no problem extending it, I just don't want to have someone abandon the course without telling me. You're doing fine. Here's the test. Without further adieu, here is the test:

1.) Q- In your own words, explain what it means to assume good faith.
 * A- I understand "good faith" to mean that everyone on Wikipedia is working for the good of the project.
 * Right, unless you have hard evidence that someone is not working for the good of the project, such as repeated vandalism, you need to assume that they are working for the betterment of us. 4/5

2.) Q- Explain how you would deal with this scenario using specifics: You are working in New Page Patrol and come across a new page that, though it's content is fine, has a few minor formatting issues. The page is three minutes old. You fix the format issues on the page. A few minutes later, you get a nasty note on your talk page which states that you caused the new editor, who created the page, an edit conflict by performing your few minor corrections. He was unaware of how to correct an edit conflict, and therefore lost everything he was trying to do. He even goes so far as to start an AN/I discussion about how you're incompetent and should butt out of his editing. What specific steps would you take? Disclaimer: This is based on a true story. Note: A similar question will be asked once we get to the dispute resolution question, but simply based on assuming good faith, I want to here how you'd approach this scenario.
 * A- I would start communication. Send him an email if that is available to me or start a thread on his talk page explaining that I was trying to help him.  I would encourage him to talk to me directly by email or on my talk page if he has an issue and NOT start up a Noticeboard Incident as that only inflames an issue.  I think that is good advice applicable to most simple misunderstandings on Wikipedia.
 * Right, always look to de-escalate. Perhaps Dennis Brown said it best: One of the most important things to remember is this: When dealing with a "bad doer", be it a sockpuppet, vandal or edit warrior, you have to remain calm. Cool. Collected. If you ramp up the drama, you make it more likely that they will retaliate even more, so now you have more vandalism, more socks, more problems. Failure to handle a situation in a calm manner leads to more problems, more drama. Make sure you explain how, in the future, to rectify edit conflicts. 4/5

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

3a.) Position A?
 * A-I really don't understand this. This is just gibberish to me.  Is this a scenario on the Passat page???  If it is, it has no business being there.  If it's on a Talk page, it may be okay.
 * Whether or not the conversation should be happening is beside the point here. I'm looking to see if you understand threading. So, when "Passat Lover" says "Volkswagon Passat", to whom is he replying (e.g., Rod, Freddie, or Jane). Italic textRod.Italic text
 * Actually he's replying to Rod's Mate, here. 2/5

3b.) Position B?
 * A-Ditto. Italic textFreddie.Italic text
 * Yup. 5/5
 * Same here.
 * While the conversation is strange, I think you are looking for consistent indentation pursuant to Wikipedia's rules on page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:THREAD#Indentation. Basically every time you add a comment, you add a colon preceding your answer and, as always, 4 tildes as a signature that links to your user pages.   It keeps things neat and shows the flow of conversation.johncheverly 03:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

3c.) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
 * A-I assume "good faith" and not sarcasm when you say "awfully competent w/ templates." I would be disinclined to report the editor for sock puppetry or using multiple accounts.  The scenario you describe does not connote mutual exclusivity.  The editor may be very gifted with graphic arts or writing code and may be more adept at the optics of pages than he is actually contributing to them.
 * Precisely; you just need to assume that he is, well, competent with templates. Maybe his real life job is a software developer, a website code writer, but the point of the question was to make sure that you would assume good faith. 3/5

When you're finished, we'll move on to a really fun topic, vandalism.

johncheverly 23:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Just answer those two, and it looks like you'll pass with flying colors. Good work! Go  Phightins  !  00:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Was that the answer you were looking for???johncheverly 03:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the idea; I just want you to apply that to tell me who specifically (of the characters involved) the guy is responding to. The content of the discussion is irrelevant. Go   Phightins  !  03:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Grade: 18/25 (72%)
 * Comments: I think you're gaining an increasing knowledge of this; you're fine. Go   Phightins  !  03:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Lesson three
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:

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.

If you want to post the exam and give a week to complete, you may.johncheverly 17:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ya know, smart-assed remarks like "Passed by the skin of your teeth"; and, implying that I didn't read the lesson are not helpful, not assuming good faith, and not setting a good example. johncheverly 20:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies. In the past, I have made a remark about the adoptee's performance in a lesson such as "with flying colors", so posting this didn't seem any different to me. Thank you for bringing it up as it never would have occurred to me to change it, but I will remember that for the future. As for the other part, I'm not sure where you felt I did this. The last lesson was a bit of a challenge for you, but you did fine. The only part you had a little trouble with was the technical aspect which, even after amassing almost 10,000 edits in 18 months, I still don't get correct all the time. The next couple of lessons should be better for you. Again, I do want to apologize my mix-up in the beginning and thank you again for commenting on that. I don't believe I still do, but at one point I had a userbox that said "This user tries to do the right thing, if he makes a mistake, please let him know". Thanks for letting me know, and good luck on the remainder of the course ! Go   Phightins  !  21:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Test
I'm going to try to keep this test short...that was a lot of reading you just did (or hopefully just did ). There is a practical aspect to this test, so if you don't have Twinkle turned on, I would recommend doing so now.

1.) Q- In your own words, define vandalism.
 * A-I would say that vandalism is ANY DELIBERATE ATTEMPT, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, TO SABOTAGE OR DISRUPT THE WIKIPEDIA PROJECT. You define it: "an edit which is delibrately attempting to harm the encyclopedia"
 * Right. Vandalism is anything done in bad faith. 5/5

2.) Q- What are obvious indicators of a vandalism edit while watching recent changes?
 * A-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-revert_rule:
 * "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation."
 * I think you may have misunderstood the question. I'm asking, simply when looking at which you can find a link to under "interaction" on the left-hand bar, what's an obvious indicator that an edit might be vandalism, simply based on the information you can see on RC, without even looking at the edit?
 * It is difficult trying to communicate this way. K.  When I perform the aforementioned operation, I get this page:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges.  As I review that page,  there is a list of "Empty Pages" in red near the top.  One assumes these have been deleted for one reason, or another.  There are 500 pages in descending order by date.  One sees reasons/comments for changes.  One such is (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G3). [Using Twinkle.]) recent changes.  That type of request/reason, indicates some sort of vandalism.johncheverly 01:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. Another way is if you see "-1000" in bold red or another number in bold red without an edit summary; that indicates a large removal of content. Go   Phightins  !  01:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My score on this question???johncheverly 16:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

3.) Q- What warning template would you use if a user removed or blanked all the content from a page?
 * A-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-vandalism1
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-disruptive1
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-delete1
 * I would pick only one of the three, probably the final one. We only need one template per infraction. 4/5

4.) What if I came to your talk page and called you a !@#$!#$!@#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!@#$!@#$!@#%#$^$%^#@$~#$@#$%!@#$!@#? Then what warning template would you use?
 * A-The Beetle Bailey/SGT Snorkle template??? MY Talk Page???  I'd slam you.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-vandalism1
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-disruptive1
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-joke1
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-notcensored1
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-agf1
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-harass1
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-npa1
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-npov1
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-mos1
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-tpv1
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-tilde  ---You didn't sign your rant.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-ewblock
 * While I agree what I allegedly posted was egregious, again, you only should use one template, probably npa1 or harass1, though at your discretion, this would be a scenario where you could use an only warning template. 3/5

5.) What is WP:AIV and when should you use it?
 * A-Proper procedures for administrator intervention against vandalism may be found on these pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AIV;
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_administrator_intervention_against_vandalism.
 * "Vandals should always receive enough warnings before being reported. What constitutes "enough" is left to your best judgment. ::::Consider the user's past edits, warnings and blocks, the severity of their offense, the likelihood that their edit(s) could have been ::::made in error or otherwise in good faith, and the type of user in question (IP addresses may be shared or dynamic, and old ::::warnings could be irrelevant to the current situation).Blocking is meant to be preventive, not punitive. Therefore, the user must ::::show a strong likelihood of making further disruptive edits despite warnings and being informed of the blocking policy. Always ::::give a final warning, and report only if the vandal has vandalized at least once after that. (A final warning is a "level 4" warning, ::::usually or, in more extreme cases,  .) Administrators are likely to remove your report if ::::they feel that the vandal has been insufficiently warned or has stopped after the final warning."
 * Pretty much. 4/5

6.) Find three instances of vandalism, revert them, warn the users appropriately, and post the diffs below (the diffs of the vandalism will suffice, I will go ensure that you warned them appropriately and don't need diffs to do so).
 * A-http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friedrich_Nietzsche&diff=prev&oldid=536616369
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Universe_2006&diff=prev&oldid=536737931
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lewis_County,_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=536793683
 * I actually want you to revert the instances of vandalism.
 * K. Here is one I did after I finished the exam last night.  I know it's overkill, but at least I tried.

There goes.johncheverly 02:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC). . .johncheverly 02:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)johncheverly 02:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm exhausted at the moment (gotta love cold and flu season), but I will try to get to this tomorrow. Go   Phightins  !  02:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear that. Please take your time as I am in no hurry to begin lesson four anytime soon, presuming I pass exam three.johncheverly 03:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * All right, I'm putting this lesson on hold; you're off to a good start, but you need to fix #2 and find three instances of vandalism and revert them posting those diffs here. Good luck! Go   Phightins  !  21:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norman_Mailer&oldid=536873005johncheverly 02:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am getting frustrated and giving up for the evening. How can you just go out and spot vandalism unless it is an issue you are very familiar with???  Also, how are you scoring grading???  Is this totally subjective or what???  I am done for this evening.johncheverly 02:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Lessson five
Hey John, it looks like the above lesson was causing you some frustration, so let's move on for now. As for your question on grading, I have a "cognitive rubric", if you will. Basically:
 * A 5/5 is an answer that demonstrates complete understanding and cites examples without just copying definitions.
 * A 4/5 is an answer that shows a general understanding and may either not cite an example at all or cite a vague one.
 * A 3/5 is an answer that demonstrates partial understanding and either incorrectly cites an example or trips up on the definition of something.
 * A 2/5 is anything below that except for...
 * A 1/5 which insults someone or something; never had to use this one, hope never to have to.

In any case, if you feel I've slighted you in grading, feel free to let me know and I'll be happy to re-visit it for you. For now, let's jump into dispute resolution. (I skipped the mini-lesson on Twinkle because I think you know how to use it. If you don't, let me know and we can come back to it after this lesson) -- Go   Phightins  !  20:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, The final question was troubling.  I think I do have a passing new knowledge of Twinkle.  I will review the study material on dispute resolution and let you know when I think I am ready to take the quiz.  It won't be until after the weekend.  Thanks.johncheverly 22:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All right. Great. Go   Phightins  !  22:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you want to post the exam for me to start work on tomorrow, THURS, 2/14/13. you may do so.  Thanks.johncheverly 16:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Have completed the exam to the best of my ability.johncheverly 20:57, 15 February 2013 (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 editors 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). The editors at each specialise in sorting debates.

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 it's 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?
Questions about any of the above?

Test
This isn't a really easy topic to test, but we'll give it a go nonetheless !
 * I am going to take this test in digestible bites. I have answered the last question first.  Expect numerous notices over the next few days.johncheverly 18:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Have completed the exam to the best of my ability.johncheverly 3:57 pm, Today (UTC−5)johncheverly 23:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

1.) Q- In your own words, explain each "level" of dispute resolution (e.g., third opinion, mediation, etc.).
 * A-


 * Editor assistance: Low-level stage in the dispute resolution process. Good for sussing out very minor disagreements.
 * Right. This is extremely informal. 5/5
 * Third opinion: Probably the second step in the dispute resolution process. "When two editors do not agree, either editor may list a discussion here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires observance of good faith and civility from both editors during the discussion in order to be successful."
 * Exactly, you post a message on the third opinion noticeboard and usually someone (maybe even me if you're lucky ) will swing by and give you a third opinion. 5/5
 * Mediation: Next to last step in the dispute resolution process. "Request formal mediation of the dispute from the Mediation Committee. Mediation is a voluntary process in which a neutral person works with the parties to a dispute."
 * In a mediation, someone experienced in dispute resolution will come in and try to broker a compromise. Members of the mediation committee are very experienced in dispute resolution and usually can hammer out a deal. 4/5
 * Request for comment: Low-level remedy for disputes. As a matter of fact, an editor could use this process on his own page just to get clarity from other Wikipedians.
 * Well, an RFC is best for content disputes, though we do have a process called WP:RFC/U which is for comment on users. Generally, I would say an RFC is good for broader consensus on a content issue. 4/5
 * Arbitration: Final stage of the dispute resolution process. "Arbitration differs from mediation in that the Arbitration Committee will consider the case and issue a decision, instead of merely assisting the parties in reaching an agreement. If the issue is decided by arbitration, you will be expected to abide by the result."johncheverly 01:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)johncheverly 01:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Right on. ArbCom is the Supreme Court of Wikipedia...its decisions are binding and there is no higher power to which one can appeal. Hopefully, you'll never have to go there. 4.5/5


 * In total, question one has you sitting at a 22.5/25.

2.) Q- Two editors are in a Content dispute. Editor A adds something they feel helps the encyclopedia, Editor B reverts, Editor A re-adds, Editor B reverts again. Two part question:
 * Part A) Is this edit warring?
 * A-Yes, and the both of them are coming close to "the bright line" of the three revert rule.
 * Correct. 5/5
 * Part B) How should they resolve this dispute?
 * A-I would say DON'T ask for a third opinion, because both are so certain of their positions. If I were one of the two, I'd first request assistance and take it from there.johncheverly 20:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)johncheverly 20:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What kind of assistance would you request?
 * I'd go the Editor Assistance route. More informal.  I just think it's best to escalate slowly.johncheverly 23:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. 4/5

3.) Q- What if you're participating in an Articles for deletion discussion? You post your opinion, let's just say you think the article should be deleted, the creator of the article replies to your edit calling you an incompetent intellectual snob who has no right to edit Wikipedia. How would you handle the situation?
 * A-The response both childish and natural. The creator's natural tendency is to protect his creation.  What's my level of involvement???  Did I personally nominate the article for deletion???  Or, was I just putting in my 2 cents worth as a third opinion or a request for comment???  Big difference.  This is a marketplace of ideas scenario.  If the overwhelming body of opinion is that the article is going to be deleted, there is no amount of anger that's going to change that.  By the same token, if my opinion is in the minority, especially a very minor minority, there is no sense exchanging barbs.  If I initiated the deletion, was very knowledgeable on the topic, and the creator is still dug in and recalcitrant, I would go for a third opinion and take it from there.johncheverly 20:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)johncheverly 20:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)johncheverly 20:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All right. 4/5

4.) Remember that scenario from lesson two regarding the editor and edit conflicting in NPP? (you may refer back to it of course) How would you handle that situation now?
 * A-I'd put in basic request for assistance.johncheverly 20:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, which type of assistance would you request?
 * Editor Assistance. I just don't think there is any need to "go nuclear" on somebody.  After all, I know how it is when a user does not know what he is really doing, not be shown what to do and how to do it, and then wake up on a Saturday morning with an indefinite block on his figurative ass.johncheverly 23:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Learning from mistakes is something I wish more Wikipedians would do. 5/5

5.) Q- OPINION QUESTION What's your opinion of the dispute resolution pyramid that I posted earlier in the lesson? If you could change one aspect of it, what would you change?
 * A-Name calling and ad hominem attacks could be combined in the base.johncheverly 18:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. 5/5


 * Grade: 35.5/40 (89%)
 * Comments: Those answers demonstrated some clue that you have done a nice job developing since you returned. Keep up the great work! Onto deletion. Go   Phightins  !  03:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Lesson six
Deletion theory is one of the most discussed and contentious issues on Wikipedia. There are two primary factions, the inclusionists and the deletionists. The full policy on deletion is located here. The basics are below.

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
Do you have any questions, or are you ready for the test? -- Go  Phightins  !
 * Hi. I did much better than last time and that was because I spent more time studying and took the test in digestible bites.  Don't plan on posting the exam until Friday.  Very busy this week.johncheverly 06:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Test
I thought that to test this section, I would ask a few broader, more basic questions, and then create a few pages as hypothetical scenarios. For the hypothetical scenarios, simply state what you'd do if you came across this article in mainspace.


 * I have completed the "deletion" examination to the best of my ability.johncheverly 14:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

1.) Q- Explain a scenario in which you'd use PROD instead of sending an article to AfD.
 * Broad questions
 * A-AfD, or XfD??? I'd say Scenario III below.  The subject may be a real guy and just hasn't had enough time to provide the verifiability/sourcing.  Gives him the benefit of a doubt.johncheverly 04:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All right. Generally we use PROD for what is likely uncontroversial and AFD for a deletion that at least warrants discussion. 4/5

2.) Q- You tag an article for speedy deletion under criterion A7. The creator of the page then blanks it without an edit summary. What do you do?
 * A-I would send the creator a message asking him to provide an edit summary. If he doesn't, I would.johncheverly 03:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:CSD...3/5

3.) Q- Why should you wait 10-15 minutes before tagging an article for CSD under criteria A1 or A3?
 * A-"Consensus has developed that in most cases articles should not be tagged for deletion under this criterion moments after creation as the creator may be actively working on the content; though there is no set time requirement, a ten-minute delay before tagging under this criterion is suggested as good practice. Please do not mark the page as patrolled prior to that suitable delay passing, so that the wait does not result in the article escaping review at a later time."johncheverly 03:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Right on. 5/5

1.) Scenario I
 * Hypothetical scenarios
 * A-This bullshit is a serious candidate for speedy deletion, because Wikipedia is NOT for: "Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles." Nor is Wikipedia a forum for: "Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you.  G11 WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.  johncheverly 23:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A7 would work too. 4/5

2.) Scenario II
 * A-As they used to say in pro wrestling, "Another bum." Another candidate for speedy deletion.  It's deliberate gibberish.  G1. I can't understand it, so it's gone.  Could fall under G6, housekeeping, also.  johncheverly 02:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just G1 here, but you're right. 4.5/5

3.) Scenario III
 * A-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 &hellip; Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are eligible for speedy deletion only if the article does not give a credible indication of why the subject might be important or significant. . .All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove unsourced contentious material about living people immediately."  That's assuming it's true; could be a hoax.johncheverly 03:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPPROD or WP:CSD would be the best choices here. 4.5/5

4.) Scenario IV
 * A-I would say that this smells . . .G3. Pure vandalism, and blatant hoaxes. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including images intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism. db-g3, db-vandalism, db-hoax.  First of all, it's poorly written.  Most importantly, Wikipedia identifies Portland Square as being in the City of Bristol, England.  Another issue is that the first link takes me to an ad/tourist promotion site: http://www.cyberheritage.com/portland_square_air_raid_shelter.  The other two links are . . .well . . .hoaxy  . . .Amateurishly written.  Dead links, etc.johncheverly 04:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Another option would be to attempt to clean it up, but if that doesn't work, deletion may be the best strategy as I agree, that article is a mess. 4/5


 * Grade: 29/35 (83%)
 * Comments: You have a solid grasp of speedy deletion, I'd just give WP:PROD another look if I were you. In any case, you've done well enough that we can move on to a little personal break. Go   Phightins  !  21:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal Break
You're about half way through the course, so now it's time for a personal break. These questions won't be graded, I just want to get to know a little more about you as a person and as a Wikipedian.
 * I'd say the same thing as I did last week. Post about Friday, I'll review it over the weekend, and start the examination on Monday.  Thanks.johncheverly 22:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

1.) Q- Why did you start editing Wikipedia? Why have you continued to do so?
 * A-I've used Wikipedia for about seven or eight years. I was a newspaper reporter and editor for a long time.  Although I have changed careers.  Thought it might be something I would good at.

2.) Q- Give me a little background on your username. Is it a derivation of your real name, from a show, sports team, game, book, etc.? Is it simply a random conglomeration of letters?
 * A-Variation on my name.

3.) Q- What is your primary interest area about which you'd like to edit?
 * A-Movies. World War II.  Modern Ecclesiology.  I thought I answered this in the beginning when I was looking for a mentor.  Look at my talk page contributions.  That's where I am interested.

4.) Q- Do you have any future goals as far as something you'd like to do on Wikipedia?
 * A-Ultimately, I would like to design a home page . . .but that's way down the road.

johncheverly 22:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments
So as not to leave you in limbo, I am going to post the next lesson for you.Tazerdadog (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright
Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. This is perhaps the most complex, most important, and most difficult lessons in the course and policies on 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
Are you ready for this? Ok. Take a deep breath. You can do it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions
This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations.


 * You many post the exam.johncheverly 11:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Test
Here's the test. Don't worry if you struggle a bit with this one. Be sure to explain your answers so I can tell where you're coming from, however as this topic has potential legal ramifications, I won't be able to accept all answers as long as you're thinking and will be more stringent here. Let's go.
 * Copyright is where I first started getting in trouble. I was cutting and pasting from other sites to articles on Wikipedia.johncheverly 23:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Completed to the best of my ability.johncheverly 01:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey John, before I grade, for the questions regarding Obama and the death row prisoner, the question is can you upload an image from the press (e.g., a newspaper) and claim it as fair use. Sorry for the ambiguity. Go   Phightins  !  02:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

1.) Q- Is Wikipedia truly free? This is an opinion question
 * A-Judging from the fundraising appeals that are posted on the homepage every couple of months, No, Wikipedia is not free. It costs money to provide the service.johncheverly 23:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

2.) Q- List three times when you can upload a picture to the Commons.
 * A- For all practical purposes on Wikipedia, the public domain comprises copyright-free works: anyone can use them in any way and for any purpose. Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism.

The public domain is generally defined (e.g. by the U.S. Copyright Office) as the sum of works that are not copyrighted, i.e.
 * that were not eligible for copyright in the first place, or
 * whose copyright has expired, or
 * that were released into the public domain by the copyright holder.johncheverly 00:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

3.) Q- You find music displaying this licence (non-commercial). Can we upload it to Commons?
 * A-Yes. It clearly states: You are free: to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work and to Remix — to adapt the work, as long as long as proper attribution is given to the author; and, as long as the work is not used for commercial purposes.johncheverly 00:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

4.) Q- A user uploads a collage of all the Phillies' 2008 players' official team photographs so the photos spell 08 (background: the Phillies won the World Series in 2008). Is this suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia? The user in question created it himself.
 * A-No. First thing I am thinking is: I am not seeing it on here, so it must not have passed muster.  Second thing I am thinking: is a collage too artsy-fartsy for an online encyclopedia???  Why is it necessary???  Next thing I am thinking: EVEN if the the photo was NOT copyrighted, is some guy allowed to make a work of art from it, if that recreated work COULD have the potential to be sold for profit???  Finally, I am thinking: any team photo I have ever seen is copyrighted by the Major League Baseball Club in particular and MLB in general.johncheverly 00:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

5.) Q- What is a derivative work?
 * A-In the United States, the Copyright Act defines "derivative work" in 17 U.S.C. § 101:

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.johncheverly 00:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

6.) Q- Can you upload a press image of Barack Obama?
 * A Apparently you can There are no less than 26 images of him on his page.  He is the US of A's MOST PUBLIC figure.

'As far as "Fair Use": "Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.

The term fair use originated in the United States. A similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.

Fair use is one of the traditional safety valves.

17 U.S.C. § 107 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."'johncheverly 20:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

7.) Q- What about a press image of a man on death row?
 * A-Ditto, the above. Yes.johncheverly 20:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

8.) Q- What would you do if you found an image that was not released under a suitable tag for inclusion on Wikipedia (e.g., all rights were reserved and the work was not in the public domain)?
 * A-If I wanted to use it badly enough, I would contact the copyright holder and ask for permission to use it.johncheverly 01:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

9.) Q- 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:Falwellhustler.jpgjohncheverly 01:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Lesson nine
We're cruising right along, moving into lesson number nine! Congratulations on making it this far. We're now going to dig in to some tougher stuff than what we've been dealing with thus far; the remainder of the lessons will require you to apply what you've learned in prior lessons into scenarios that I will pose to you during the tests.

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 should generally be non-binding based upon weight of numbers, but rather through the weight of their 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 decree from Wikimedia foundation or 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. You've already learned about vandalism in a separate lesson, so we don't need to worry about that at the moment.

Policy and guidelines
Most of what we do on 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, the describe how the community works and in generally that remains relatively 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." This is the fifth pillar of Wikipedia. I've seen people try to apply it, and it seldom works in their argument, but it's definitely worth keeping in mind. There is a good essay on how to apply this concept here. Originally, this policy was written by co-founder Larry Sanger. He phrased the policy like this: If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business. There are an innumerate number of interpretations of this policy; over the years I've begun to develop mine, and you'll have to develop yours, but that's the general gist of it.

Questions
Well, that's that. Do you have any questions on Consensus or policy?
 * The schedule we've been using the last few weeks has been working. Please post the test FRI afternoon/evening.  Will finish sometime SUN--MON.  Thanks.johncheverly 22:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Test
On this test, I'm looking for some quality thinking; make your argument, do it effectively, and you'll probably get a good score. Without further adieu, here we go.


 * OK. Done to the best of my abilities.johncheverly 19:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

1.) Q- Explain the differences between a policy, a guideline, and an essay.
 * A-"The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays on Wikipedia is obscure. There is no bright line between what the community chooses to call a "policy" or a "guideline" or an "essay". . .  Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow. . . Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. . . Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors (such as a WikiProject) for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace."johncheverly 19:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. That's pretty much it. Policies are "binding" (unless you ignore them), guidelines are good practices, and essays are opinions. Good job. 5/5

2.) Q- Citing an example that's actually occurred on Wikipedia within the last couple of years, explain whether or not you think that Wikipedia is a de facto bureaucracy.
 * A-I personally think what happened in my case and how I got into an indefinite block situation was an example of bureaucracy. I got on here last May and, after a while of making comments on articles, some editor welcomed me and sent me links to the Five Pillars . . . and Be Bold . . ..  I continued on without taking them seriously and, finally, the "machinery" of Wikipedia kicked in, I was given a short time to get my act together, and, when I didn't, I had an indefinite block thrown on me by an administrator using established policies and procedures.  I know Wikipedia is a bureaucracy from that.  How efficient it is, is another matter entirely.  Had I been made to go through an examination process like this as soon as I created an account, the story probably would have been much different.johncheverly 19:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good example; I talked to User:Kudpung via email about some sort of "competence test" (for lack of a better term) on the policies and we concluded it would be a decent idea, just not plausible without a lot of support from WMF. 5/5

3.) Q- Can policies change? If you wanted to change one, how would you go about doing so?
 * A-Policies always change, whether it's Wikipedia or the US Government. I think a policy should be established that when someone registers on Wikipedia, an inquiry should be made within a week as to whether the person is doing so with the the intention of being an editor.  If he/she is, he/she should be made to go through the same process I am going through now with you as a part of Wikipedia's Terms of Use.  How would I go about doing it???  I am officially letting you know now.  If you are unresponsive, I will work my way up through the bureaucracy to Jimmy Wales.johncheverly 19:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Village Pump (policy proposals) is where policy proposals go, but the infrastructure isn't the key thing. At the end of the day, policies need consensus. 5/5

4.) Q- Explain a situation in which you could apply WP:IAR. (This may be hypothetical, but please make up something specific)
 * A-Happened to me the other day. On the "Just a Gigolo" article, I misread it to say it was the actress Kim Novak's last film. so I posted a new section with a longwinded explanation that it wasn't her last film.  When I reread the article, I apprehended it was Marlene Dietrich's last film.  I just did an Emily Litella" type of delete and stated it was a "reverting/test edit."  That probably wasn't acceptable operating procedure, but it was all good as far as I was concerned.johncheverly 19:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All right. By and large our policies work pretty well, but there are certain occasions when ignoring them is prudent. 5/5

5.) Q- Are decrees from the Wikimedia Foundation subject to change from the Wikipedia community?
 * A-"There are a couple of exceptions to consensus. Anything decree from Wikimedia foundation or 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. . . "johncheverly 19:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Dead on. 5/5


 * Grade: 25/25 (100%)
 * Comments: Wow! Excellent work! Go   Phightins  !  21:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, you've completed all the lessons to this point. So now it's your turn to go out and work on the encyclopedia! I don't know if you realize, but the other lessons dealt with the theory of Wikipedia, and, for the most part, didn't actually ask you to do anything. Well, this module is designed to teach you about the different areas you can work. It's a big wide encyclopedia out there.

Building
The first option is to build new articles. You know an awful lot about how Wikipedia works now, and what's notable and what's not, reliable sources and what not. How about you try and write an article? Something new, something different. You may have already done this. If you can write 1500 characters about a subject, you can submit it for Did you know. Did you know is a great way to ensure your new articles are up to scratch (they need to be less than 5 days old in the mainspace, well sourced and have a catchy "hook") and the hook should appear on the front page in the Did you know section! You can also apply for a DYK if you expand the characters in an article by 5x. That can be quite tough, but it is possible.

Join a Project
Have a look at your favorite articles, on the talk page, you'll often find that they have an associated WikiProject. The project is always looking for new members and will enjoy your help! They often have to-do lists and you could help out :D

Deleting
Why not head over to WP:XfD. There's always debates going on about articles that might need deleting from the encyclopedia. Throw in a view! You've been reading so much theory, you'll know as much as most people. There's an article on WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions which might help you.

Patrolling
There's a lot to maintain at Wikipedia, and your help would be gratefully received.
 * New Page Patrol checks every single new page to see if it meets the guidelines, wikifies it, tags it and marks it as patrolled. Would be very helpful if you'd help out :D Have a read an think which you might be interested in helping out there. You may end up using your WP:CSD knowledge, or at least nominate them for deletion.
 * Recent Changes Patrol, vandalism patrol. it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it! I've done quite a bit, but it still only accounts for 20% of my work here.

Cleanup

 * WP:CLEANUP is one of the biggest backlogs on Wikipedia. There's lots of things to do there, from wikification to re-writing articles to comply with NPOV. Every little does help, so whatever you can do, please do.

Help the encyclopedia move forward
There's always discussions going on at requested moves or WP:Requests for comment. Why not see if you can offer a point of view? The most important (supposedly) at any given time are listed at WP:CENT. Hey, you can even wander around the village pump (the encyclopedic version of the water cooler), see if there's any general discussions you're interested in.

When you feel you're ready
Once you've familiarized yourself with all of these areas, let me know. I will either recommend some other lessons or re-taking a prior lesson test, or I will give you a link to the final exam. Have fun! It's a big encyclopedia out there! -- Go  Phightins  !

Final
Here is the link to the final. There are directions for you on that page. There is vandalism work on the final, so passing that part will absolve the prior struggles. If you struggle there, I'll throw out that section from the final grade and simply grade the rest and we'll return to the vandalism lesson. Good luck. You have one week from when you create the page to complete the final. Your adopter, Go   Phightins  !  19:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Final Exam for Johncheverly
johncheverly 01:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on reaching your final exam. Please follow all instructions carefully.


 * ( adoption page stalker ) I don't want to be nit picky, but I just wanted to let you know what a diff is. (Go Phightins!, I am sorry for pointing out the mistakes and I don't want to overwhelm him. After all, I probably shouldn't.) If you go to the history page of the article you edited, like the history page for Kitty Hawk Airways and click on "prev" on the edit you made, then that is what GP is looking for for some of these. You can post the URL of that diff in brackets []. That way if someone changes it, GP can look at the revision you made instead of the current revision. Hope this helps! JHU bal 27 • Talk •E-mail 23:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, please make sure that your speedy deletion claim is valid, as you did with Kitty Hawk Airways. There was content there, so A3 does not apply. Please check WP:CSD.
 * Also, I'm not sure if this is a mistake, but you posted a link to your userpage for a WikiProject. A Wikiproject directory can be found here and you can join whichever one peaks your interest.
 * One more if you're actually reading this. I know you're still working on this test, but you posted a link to an image page for an AFD debate. If you nominate an article at WP:AFD you can look at WP:Deletion policy to see which criteria you can use to start the debate. AFD is a place where people debate about whether or not an article should be deleted. You can either say delete, keep, merge, etc. And explain why.


 * I hope this all helps and I recommend you read it. Thanks. JHU bal 27 • Talk •E-mail


 * Hi JHUbal, thanks for dropping by. John, as long as you link to the page, I can figure it out. I'm more interested in the quality of the work rather than the conventions of getting it there. Feel free to read what JHUbal said, it's decent advice, but you're doing a good job so far from the few things I have peeked at.  Go   Phightins  !  20:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Practical Exam
Following are your tasks for the practical exam. When a task is completed, replace the Not done template with Done. You may also use Doing to indicate a task that is currently underway. All tasks must be marked completed before the time stated above. Even if you have done these tasks in the past, please do them again during this exam period.


 * Done Patrol five new pages in new page patrol. Post diffs here: ,,,,
 * Done Nominate at least one article for deletion in AFD with a well-reasoned nomination explaining why the article should be deleted. Post the link to the debate here: []
 * Done Participate in at least two AFD debates with well-reasoned comments. Diffs: ,
 * Done Tag at least one article for speedy deletion. Diff:
 * Done Cleanup at least two articles (e.g., resolve at least one problem noted with a maintenance tag and remove said maintenance tag) Diffs: ,
 * Revert at least eight instances of vandalism and warn the vandals appropriately. Post only the diffs of the reversions themselves, not the warnings. Diffs:, , , , , , ,
 * ✅Join a Wiki-Project of your choosing. Diff: johncheverly 02:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

In the event you attempt to do a task above but a bot beats you the the task a ridiculously obscene number of times, please make a note of that here. I've tried to do similar tasks before and been incredibly frustrated by the automatic bots. You should be able to demonstrate that you put an honest effort into completing the task.

All right, well John. I agree with you. You struggled on the practical exam. Part of that is a reflection on my failure in instructing you on how to take the broad theories and put them in to practice. I do apologize for that. You have passed the written exam, but not the practical one. So I'll leave it up to you. If you want to end the adoption course now, that is entirely up to you. If, however, you would like to keep working, I will absolutely put as much effort in as we need to help you get to a point where you can understand and apply the concepts. I'll leave that up to you. I apologize for my lack of performance; I promise if you choose to continue that I'll do better. Let me know. Thank you, and have a wonderful Easter. Go  Phightins  !  02:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Written Exam
Done
 * 1) What is consensus, and how does it apply to Wikipedia policies?
 * A:Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms. This policy describes how consensus is understood on Wikipedia, how to determine whether it has been achieved (and how to proceed if it has not), and describes exceptions to the principle that all decisions are made by consensus.
 * Well, that pretty much hit the nail on the head...though it was copied directly from the page. I would have preferred something in your words that shows you understand it. 4/5
 * 1) You add a PROD tag to an article as it doesn't seem to be notable, but it gets removed by the author ten minutes later. You don't believe he's addressed the notability concerns, so what is one step you could take from here?
 * A:Ask for: Editor Assistance is intended as an informal method of requesting one-to-one advice, feedback, and counseling from another editor who may be more experienced about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and how they may apply to the issue or situation that you are experiencing. This process can also help in resolving disputes.
 * Taking it to WP:AFD would probably be the best move, but editor assistance would also suffice. When it comes to deletion, think of the three policies as a progression, of sorts. If a PROD is declined, AFD is next in the progression. 4/5
 * 1) Flip that situation around. You come across a PROD that you don't think should be deleted, and remove the tag. Your edit is reverted and you get a nasty note on your talk page. What do you do?
 * A:Use the Requests for mediation process, which is used to request formal mediation of a dispute. Formal mediation is provided by the Mediation Committee as a final stage of the content-dispute resolution process. Formal mediation is only suitable for disputes over article content, so requests to mediate grievances with other editors will not be accepted.Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee's policy at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy, and so requests for mediation must satisfy the preconditions provided for by that policy.
 * Discuss it before you get too deep into the dispute resolution process, but further down the line, what you said is correct. 4/5
 * 1) Define vandalism. When is it appropriate to report a vandal to administration?
 * A:Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Report vandals that continue their behavior after being warned to 'Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism'. While not strictly required, administrators there are most likely to respond rapidly to requests which include at least two warnings, culminating in the level four 'last chance' template.
 * Vandalism doesn't even have to be that narrow: it is, to put it simply, any bad faith edit. Right on for Part II. 4/5
 * 1) You mark a non-notable article for speedy deletion under CSD A7. Moments later, you notice in Recent Changes that the page has been blanked by the author. What do you do?
 * A:Thank him . . . Falls under "Ignore all Rules (IAR). Not quite sure how IAR applies there, but you are right that it is not vandalism. Tag the page under CSD criterion WP:CSD (author requests deletion) 4/5
 * 1) You revert something thinking it's vandalism, but you get a rather irate reply on your talk page: "That's not vandalism! This is a serious fact covered my many research articles! How dare you accuse me of (insert type of vandalism here, as well as more complaints)!" You check, and sure enough, he's right. What do you do?
 * A:Apologize and ask to assume good faith.
 * Right. Make sure you fix the problem too. 5/5
 * 1) I found an image on a website of a person that could be really useful in an article I'm writing about them. The website doesn't say the image is copyrighted, so what should I do to upload it to Wikipedia?
 * A:Before uploading images at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, make sure you read and follow the image use policy. Most images you might find on the Internet are copyrighted and not appropriate for uploading to Wikipedia. If you did not create the image, or if you are unable or unwilling to verify its copyright status, do not upload the image. Also, in the cases of images where their owners have stipulated they be used for non-commercial purposes only, under new guidelines such images may no longer be uploaded into Wikipedia except by the express permission of those owners. (Consider this policy position.) For hints on how to find images appropriate for uploading, see the finding images tutorial. It might also be helpful to read Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload.
 * Right. Only upload if you have permission to do so via copyright licensing. 5/5
 * 1) You've been a frequent contributor to an article and have helped get it so it's almost ready for nomination as a featured article. You log in one day to find that it's just been put up for AfD by a new user. Nobody has commented on the debate yet, so what should you do?
 * A:I would roll the article back, explain the senario, and link him/her to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette
 * Why would you link to that page? Also, don't just rollback, it's better to ask for a fresh set of eyes from a confidant, preferably an admin who has more leeway to speedily close an AfD discussion. 3/5
 * 1) If I wrote a template "foo" with this code, what would be displayed when I called it like this: Thanks again! ? Thanks for helping with ! It's a great help.
 * A:I haven't the slightest fucking idea . . .should I???
 * Oh. Nope. Sorry, we didn't cover that. Go   Phightins  !  01:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We didn't get into templates, so I won't penalize you for that question. Though if you're interested, paste the template into your sandbox and see what comes up. 5/5
 * 1) You're working with an new editor to cleanup a page they created. During the course of your discussions, you realize that the content of the article is an exact copy of a textbook the other editor is reading off of. What should you do?
 * A:First, do as instructed on the Plagiarism article: If you find an example of plagiarism, where an editor has copied text, media, or figures, into Wikipedia without proper attribution, contact the editor responsible, point them to this guideline and ask them to add attribution. Given that attribution errors may be inadvertent, intentional plagiarism should not be presumed in the absence of strong evidence.[11] Remember that contributors may not be familiar with the concept of plagiarism. Remember to start with the assumption of good faith. It may also be helpful to refer them to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and/or Help:Citations quick reference. Editors who have difficulties, or questions about this guidance can be referred to the Help Desk, or media copyright questions. In addition to requesting repair of the example you found, you may wish to invite the editor to identify and repair any other instances of plagiarism they may have placed before becoming familiar with this guideline. If you find that an editor persists in plagiarizing, report the editor to the administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to include diffs that show both the plagiarism and the warning. . . Then I would post a speedy deletion tag citing Blatant Copyright in fringement.
 * Solid summation of the procedure. 5/5


 * Grade for Written Exam: 43/50 (86%)
 * Comments: Overall, you did a nice job, but be careful not to simply copy paste and/or closely paraphrase from policy pages; that doesn't really show me anything...I want to see your thinking and analysis.  Go   Phightins  !  22:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Templates
Hello John, I'm TheOriginalSoni and I'll be your teacher for this lesson on templates.

Let's just start with the basics now - Any page that has a  before it's name is in the Template namespace, and is a template. They function to help make things a lot simpler when you are editing any page. A template is simply a different page whose contents can be seen from another page by calling it.

Lets say you have a page Calling page where you want some text to appear. But you do not want to deal with the huge mess of text in the editing window, and would want it replaced by just a few characters which would do the same work. That is when you use a template.

First, we make a page (Lets say Template:Template page) where you have whatever information you wanted to view on Calling page. Since it is in the Template namespace, we can use it as a template, and call it from Calling page now.

To call the template, you use the following code on Calling page -. When you do that, whatever is in Template:Template page gets automatically displayed in place of  every time you open Calling page. Now if you want to change some text, you have to change Template name, and the change will be automatically shown on Calling page whenever you open it.

Simple enough? Good. Because now we will be learning some more cool stuff with Templates.

The first thing you now need to know that you can use a template even without putting it into the Template namespace. But then, you will have to mention the namespace of whichever template you are using. For example, the table that you see below is a template at User:TheOriginalSoni/Templates adoption 1. Then how did I get it to work? By using the full name of the template-.

Here is a table of what happens when you call these templates-

The second thing to know is parameters. For some templates, you might want to change the way it displays for different values you specify. For that, you use parameters while calling the template. To use that, you simply call your template this way -. This code will call the template, but with the parameter "1" getting the value of "foo" when called. While making the template, you can give the parameters names or numbers. When you use names, you have to write the parameter name while calling it before specifying its value. will now give a value of "foo" to the parameter "name". When using numbers, you may choose to skip the parameter's name, but you can't do that for named parameters.

In the template page, there are several codes you can add to do some special things, including adding a parameter. This table shall explain what they do.

Some templates can be used with parser functions such as #if: These functions to apply certain conditions to the code and make the template appear differently based on what the function is. These functions can help 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.

The last thing you need to know about templates is Substitition. Substitution, or "subst'ing" a template replaces the curly braced call by the actual template text. To do this, add the code "subst:" at the beginning of the call:. When this is done, the MediaWiki software will replace that call with the template's code on saving the page. 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. 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.

Any Questions?
Do you have any questions or do you completely understand what was told here? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Test
For this test, I've created you a nice new page at /Templates test /Templates test. 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 Johncheverly and I intend to pass this module! (Template module)
 * A:

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

4) My name is Johncheverly 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.'

Feel free to play around with the template, and edit it if required. You can always revert back if you've made a mistake. If you aren't sure what is happening, just try and read through on that template. You can also ask me, or at the Teahouse if I am not available. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. I have completed the quiz to the best of my ability.johncheverly 22:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (adoption page stalker) Hi John! I've been stalking this template test and it is interesting. John, the idea is not to put the sentence in brackets. I think it is very confusing, but here is the template Soni created for you. Templates give me a headache.




 * Feel free to copy and paste this to questions 1-4 on this page. Playing around with this template will produce these sentences Soni is looking for. *LOUD HINT* The template above is the answer to the first question.


 * P.S. Soni, I did the template test here if you want to take a look at it. I'm confused about the  parameter. If I put  , then shouldn't   come up JHUbal27? Thanks.  JHU  bal  27  02:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply. If you think it's still a problem, tell me. 223.176.208.148 (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Both of you need to CALL this template (with the required parameters) to finish the test. Jhubal, you cannot copy the code. The code is already in the template. You need to use that template only (User:Go Phightins!/Adopt/Johncheverly/Templates test) with the parameters to get the words to display.
 * John, first try getting the first 3 parts. You do not need to change the template for that. Just try typing  below and see what the output is. Now try adding or removing a parameter while calling it, and then see what is displayed. Try and make sure what the template displays is the same as what I have written on the page. (Just like Jhubal did on his page, but by calling the template). Do that for the first three questions. When you have done that, you'll realize that you can't do Question 4 without changing the template page [You should not be changing the template page for Q1-3]. Look at whatever you have got until now, and try and making changes to your template that allows the extra words.
 * At any point of time, both of you should feel absolutely free to make any changes you think might work. You can always revert. The best way to learn templates    is to make these small changes and see what effect happens on the calling page. Also, I suggest jhubal copy the template page to another page (Maybe a User:JHUbal27/template/actual template) so you can try Q4 independant of John.
 * I hope you guys got what is to be done. Feel free to give it another try, and ask me again if you've got a question.
 * Cheers,
 * 223.176.208.148 (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In case you did not understand, I will say it again.
 * A template is a page which is called on another page. So if you have a page named Template:Template page, you can display whatever you have written on Template page anywhere (which will be the calling page) by simply typing }.
 * What this does is to search for the page whose name is Template:Template page, and then display the contents of the template when you call it. If you add additional parameters, like by typing, then the displaying will be different based on how you make the original Template page. Codewords like #if and other such stuff in the Template page are to use the same template do different things when you call it with different parameters.
 * This is what you have to do in your test - You have to try and call the same template multiple times but make sure it displays differently.
 * Hope its clearer now
 * Cheers,
 * Soni
 * Also, a red link means the page does not exist. So if you type, the MediaWiki software will try to find the page named Template:I intend to pass this module, which does not exist. Hence the red link.

Moved from Templates Test page TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

In case you did not understand, I will say it again.

A template is a page which is called on another page. So if you have a page named Template:Template page, you can display whatever you have written on Template page anywhere(which will be the calling page) by simply typing.

What this does is to search for the page whose name is Template:Template page, and then display the contents of the template when you call it. If you add additional parameters, like by typing, then the displaying will be different based on how you make the original Template page. Codewords like #if and other such stuff in the Template page are to use the same template do different things when you call it with different parameters.

This is what you have to do in your test - You have to try and call the same template multiple times but make sure it displays differently.

10.2 Test [edit]

For this test, I've created you a nice new page at User:Go Phightins!/Adopt/Johncheverly/Templates test. 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 Johncheverly and I intend to pass this module! (Template module)

A:

3) My name is Johncheverly and I intend to eat a butterfly. (Template module)

A:

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

A: johncheverly 00:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

intend (Template module)