User:Go Phightins!/Adopt/Justin.Parallax

Well Justin, here it is. My system runs on a pattern of lessons and tests. I post a lesson, you let me know when you are ready to take the test, I post it, you do it, I grade it, we discuss it, and then we move on to the next lesson. There are nine lessons as well as a final exam, that culminates the course. If you complete that, you get all sorts of shiny wikiparaphernalia. Please sign here to indicate you have found the adoption center, and lesson one is posted. Let me know when you are ready to test.  Go  Phightins  !  10:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sign here: Justin.Parallax (talk) 16:25, 17 October 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  !
 * In the future, this section is the appropriate place to notify me you are ready for the test, but no big deal. Answer the test questions in the "A" section of each question, and change the to ✅ at the bottom, when you are ready for grading.

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- If it can be verified, I'd add it. But not based on word from a friend, as that's just heresay. I'd want to check it through independant sources, perhaps a reputable newspaper or news website.
 * Right, but not, of course, solely based on your friend. 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- I'd be hesitant to do so, based on possible copyright issues. If it were to go on any page, I'd prefer it go on the newspaper's article rather than the racism article, as this would only be a footnote on the racism article at best. My personal preference to avoid any copyright issues would be to avoid the issue entirely and perhaps discuss it on the talk page to see what others think. But maybe I'm over-analysing this.
 * This isn't actually based on copyright, more on a neutral point of view and original research issue. Look at it from that perspective. Follow up please. 1/5 (pending follow-up)
 * FOLLOW-UP ANSWER - In terms of neutral point of view, I'd still avoid using this image in question. It's a little bit too much in the line of original research, and it may even be giving one cartoon undue weight when there are more accurate and appropriate things that could be cited. If I wanted to find a good example of racism on the Telegraph, I'd rather find something in an accredited academic journal. As the question is phrased, it makes me question as to whether the opinion I'm wanting to back up is actually based in fact, or is simply a fringe opinion. If I really, REALLY wanted to include the image, I'd put it on the talk page and see what the consensus was - but in general, no, leave the research to the researchers who make their money doing all that stuff I hated doing at university.
 * The key item to note is that you cannot call it racist; a reliable source must do so. 3/5

3.) Q- You find a reliable article that says Americans are more likely to get diabetes than British people and British people are more likely to get cancer than Americans. You find another reliable article that says Americans are Capitalists and British people are Socialists.  Can you include information that says Capitalists are more likely to get diabetes and socialists are more likely to get cancer anywhere on Wikipedia?
 * A- No. Correlation does not equal causation. The two subjects are in entirely different fields, one is medical and one is political. And most importantly, there isn't any article (mentioned in this example) that actually says that capitalists are more likely to get diabetes. Just no. Logic doesn't work this way.
 * Perfect; this deals with synthesis of information, and the fact we cannot do it on Wikipedia. 5/5

4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
 * A- I'd prefer not to consider Fox News as a reliable source of information at all. My personal preference would be to double-check anything it says against some other source. But having said that, I'd be happy to include some of their statements as opinions, if it's warranted, but I'd be careful to word it as a claim (such as, "In 2012, Fox News claimed that Sarah Palin once wrestled an arctic bear...")
 * Sure, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV deals with this ... that said, for non-contentious issues, it could be reliable. But let's pivot back - is Fox News reliable for information on MSNBC, and the answer, which you somewhat said, would be probably not (and vice versa). Factual information such as founding date, maybe, but obviously, there would be better sources than that. 3/5

5.) Q- Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Twitter page a reliable source?
 * A- I wouldn't consider anyone's Twitter page to be a reliable source. If Ben & Jerry's have done something significant on their twitter, maybe announce a new flavour of ice cream, I'd personally wait until an official press release statement.
 * Good - Twitter should almost never be used as a source, except in some extreme cases where I have seen it used by some reputable contributors; if it used temporarily, that's better than nothing, but it should be replaced as soon as possible. 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- Nope, nope, nope. Forum admin/officials are people who are hired or volounteer at a company's forum in order to interact with the community, they are not an official spokesperson. For a stance on world hunger, again, an official press release would be preferable.
 * Perfect. 5/5

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- Depends heavily on what it's being used as a citation for. Context is everything. If we're discussing Burger King's information about itself, then yes. Using it for a source for itself is fine. If we're using it for advertising or pointing to any part of the page as proof that they are 'better than any other type of burger', we may have a problem there.
 * Exactly. 5/5

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- He's in the minority, and we don't really need to give weight to fringe theories if they're significantly outweighed by general consensus. Technically the editor is right though, because the sky can appear to be different colours, because the sky is colourless and simply reflects the colour from the stuff below it (been a while since I was in science class I'm afraid, the technical terms elude me at the moment). So if the article on the sky says that it's blue, we may need to rework it slightly to more accurately reflect scientific knowledge. Sorry, I'm rambling.
 * WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE offer conflicting opinions on this. Ancient Greeks (I think it was the Greeks) believed this in "ancient" times. Opinion question. Nice answer. 5/5

✅


 * FINAL GRADE - 35/40 (87.5%)
 * Comments: Normally, an 80% passes, but please do follow up on that one you missed. Thanks. Phightins is Gone (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice work, moving along.  Go  Phightins  !  15:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Lesson two
You've successfully completed the first lesson. I'll warn you, that was the easiest one. Now, let's move on to some bigger and better things, shall we? 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  !
 * I'm readier than Captain Ready (whoever that may be), let me at 'em! Justin.Parallax (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Test
Without further adieu, here is the test:

1.) Q- In your own words, explain what it means to assume good faith.
 * A- Work on the assumption that people who make edits are doing so with the best of intentions and are not acting spitefully or punitively. Don't think that people are trying to be disruptive right off the bat, actively listen to what others are telling you by their words and actions and presume that they have good intentions. And might want to give you chocolate.
 * Right on. Until proven otherwise, everyone is acting in good faith. 5/5

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 may feel that he is over-reacting. But I have no clear understanding of the level of effort he has put into his work, either. Making new pages is extremely difficult for a new editor, I know that from experience. He isn't assuming good faith on my part, and it's understandable because he is a new user. I'd want to offer him advice and suggestions on how he can revert the info and correct the edit conflict, and if he's unsure how to do so, do so myself to illustrate to him how to do so. I'd explain that I was attempting to help fix up the few minor errors, explain that making pages is often a collaborative process, and generally ask him to understand that I was working in good faith. And give him some tea.
 * All are pretty good ideas - make sure you help rectify the error if you can. 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- He is replying to Rod's Mate. Or the voices in my head. But likely just Rod's Mate.
 * We'll go with just Rod's mate. 2.5/2.5

3b.) Position B?
 * A- He's talking to Rod. And I can't think of a joke to put here. So yeah, Rod.
 * Correct. 2.5/2.5

3c.) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
 * A- No. Why should he? Maybe he has previous experience with templates learned from other websites. There's no mention of him being disruptive or doing anything at all suspicious here, so there's no reason to be suspicious of him. Assume good faith - That's the core answer there. But don't assume that you can fly. Not even if you flap your arms really fast.
 * Perfect. 5/5

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

✅ - Not sure if this icon thingy was needed here, but it's here all the same, just in case. Justin.Parallax (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Grade: 19/20 (95%)
 * Moving right along ...  Go  Phightins  !  20:52, 22 October 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 go 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: Justin.Parallax (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 

How to Revert
Well, If you're using anything but Internet Explorer, I suggest using Twinkle. You can turn it on by going to My Preferences --> Gadgets --> Twinkle. saving your preferences and then holding shift while pressing the refresh button. Suddenly you have new things to play with! Each diff gives you 3 options to roll back - more can be found at WP:TWINKLE

Vandalism and warnings
You occasionally get the repeat vandal. The vandal who is here, not because he is bored and has nothing better to do, but because he has a singular purpose of wreaking as much havoc as he can before he gets blocked. These vandals go in and remove entire sections of text, or replace entire pages with gibberish repeatedly. Even after you've given them a warning, they ignore it and continue. It is for these vandals we have multiple levels of warnings. In general, you will escalate up those levels from 1 to 4 as the vandalism continues. If it's nothing clearly malicious (see below), you should always assume that it was a careless mistake (in short, assume good faith, one of Wikipedia's foundation principles), and just let them know that you fixed it. As it continues, it becomes more and more obvious that they intend to cause trouble, so the warnings get more and more stern. Occasionally, you'll get the vandal, who despite all logical reasoning, continues to vandalize after that final warning. When this happens, we have no choice left but to block them. Since we're not administrators, we lack this ability, so we must report them to those with that power at Administrator intervention against vandalism. That page provides complete instructions on how to file a proper report. If you are using Twinkle, you can report a user to this page by clicking the "arv" tab at the top of any of their user pages. Usually, an administrator will take action within minutes, but until that happens, you need to continue watching the vandal's contributions and reverting any further vandalism. The Three-Revert Rule does not apply when dealing with obvious vandals. I should also note here that many vandals will remove warning template from their talk page. While this may appear as vandalism, and for a time was treated as such, it is not necessary to re-add these warnings, and no warning should be issued for the blanking of the talk page. While these templates do serve as an easily accessible record for other vandal fighters, their main purpose is to alert the vandal to the consequences of their actions. Removing the templates is considered a way to acknowledge that they have been read.

Then you get the belligerent vandal. This is very similar to the last kind, although they actually take the time to read the warnings (or are able to) and take offense. They go by the logic that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so who are you to tell them that they can't edit in this particular way? To make this rather annoying point, they will leave an offensive message on your talk page, or more often simply add some sort of vandalism to your main user page, which you generally won't notice for several more minutes, or days, if someone else reverts it first.

When this happens, you just have to take it in stride, and remember that you are far more intelligent than them because you actually stop to read information instead of blanking it away, and thus the human race still has some hope for salvation. Just revert it, and slap them a uw-npa warning of whatever severity you deem necessary. The last version got a uw-npa4im warning, an "only warning" for the most severe offenses, and I still reported him straight off anyway.

The final version is the malicious vandal. These are hardest to notice, because their edits aren't immediately recognizable. They will seem to be improving the article at first glance, when really they're replacing true information with false, often libelous parodies. Others replace valid links with shock sites, or add hidden comments with offensive information. This last version doesn't actually appear in the article, but is there waiting when someone comes to edit it. A similar type of vandal, the "on wheels" vandal, is here for the sole purpose of destroying the encyclopedia. The namesake, User:Willy on Wheels, replaced dozens of pages with the text " has been vandalized by User:Willy on Wheels!" The BASEPAGENAME variable is a magic word that displays the name of the page. After his blocking, Willy continued to create hundreds of sockpuppets for the same purpose. This sort of vandal is clearly here to vandalize, as such actions are not accidental. With them, you can safely assume bad faith right from the start and slam them with a more severe warning. No, you don't have to escalate in all cases - if there is no doubt that the edit was made with bad intentions, you may start with a higher level than normal. The "4im" level is designed specifically for cases of severe vandalism, and is an only warning to cease and desist.

Keep an eye out for all of these vandals, and keep that information in mind when stopping them. There is a full customized range of warning templates to be found at WP:UTM - use the most specific one possible, so that the vandal, if he did make a simple mistake, has the links at hand to learn from his mistake and improve. Any questions, please put them on the adoption talk page.

✅

Test
Nice work on the examples. All are vandalism, so nice work. 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- Vandalism is the deliberate attempt to disrupt the articles on Wikipedia, in a manner that is done outside of good intentions. It is NOT the changing of information which has been entered with the best of intentions, ie it is not disruptive editing, such as perhaps you could get from a new, eager wikipedian who is unfamiliar with article construction and may inadvertantly damage an article whilst trying to contribute to it. We have to assume goodwill with people. If an edit is done with the sole intention (taking what I have just said into account when determining intention here) of being disruptive or damaging the article, it would count as vandalism.
 * Affirmative. Essentially, vandalism is anything done in bad faith. 5/5

2.) Q- What are obvious indicators of a vandalism edit while watching recent changes?
 * A- I can think of a few that I'd keep an eye open for. Is it a large number of bytes that have been changed, for instance, as a large number here could indicate that an article has been maliciously blanked or replaced. Edit summaries are also helpful here, if the user has entered a reason for his edit or not for example, or if it has a default warning message on it. Lastly, I'd keep an eye out for users posting from anonymous names, with IP addresses - there's nothing wrong with those, but as many vandals don't have user names, this does make it somewhat easier to track.
 * The first two, yes. The last, that somewhat assumes bad faith, but those edits are worth at least looking at, but avoid "IP-profiling". One other indicator would be that some edits have a tag on them, to which you eluded. Remember, assume good faith. 4/5

3.) Q- What warning template would you use if a user removed or blanked all the content from a page?
 * A- First instance of doing this? Then I'd use [[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm Justin.Parallax. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! and escalate higher if his talk page has had previous warnings for this recently.
 * Fair enough. 5/5

4.) What if I came to your talk page and called you a !@#$!#$!@#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!@#$!@#$!@#%#$^$%^#@$~#$@#$%!@#$!@#? Then what warning template would you use?
 * A- [[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm Justin.Parallax. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
 * Nice. 5/5

5.) What is WP:AIV and when should you use it?
 * A- That's the page where we can report vandals who have repeatedly made clear and recent repeated instances of vandalism to admins so that they can take appropriate action. I should use it when myself or other editors have used up to the fifth level of a warning template on someone's talkpage in a recent period of time, and it is appropriate to do so (see below answer to question 6).
 * You don't always need to exhaust all the warning templates (and there are no more than four levels per "category", though there is an only warning template); often you can detect patterns, once you are proficient in vandalism fighting. 4/5

6.) What is the purpose of warning templates, and when would it be better simply to leave a personal note?
 * A- The purpose of the warning template is to help users identify the way in which wikipedia works, I feel. The first few levels of it are very polite and respectful and have links to useful pages for the users to read and learn about the site. The levels above that tend to be worded stronger and are used to discourage certain behaviour. If a user has not got to that point, it may be easier and more polite to leave a polite note. All new users begin somewhere, and a kind note can be very helpful to a newbie editor. Assume good will and intention. Previous behaviour needs to be taken into account when determining which is appropriate.
 * Exactly – nine times out of ten, a note beats a template. 5/5

7.) 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).
 * 
 * That one is pretty blatant. Nice work, and appropriate warning. 5/5


 * 
 * Meh, while that content obviously needs to be removed, that could just be a young adult adding himself with the intent of being funny or legitimately thinking he was a notable citizen. Seeing as he only had one warning, and it was a few months ago, perhaps a personal note could have been used instead. Nonetheless, good job. 4/5


 * 
 * Right on, perfect. 5/5

✅
 * Grade: 42/45 (93%)
 * Comments: Excellent work. Sorry it took me a few days to grade; I am incredibly busy at the moment. For the next lesson, you will need a test page in your user space somewhere. Please create one, post a link below, and then I will post the next lesson. Just title the page something like User:Justin.Parallax/adoption_lesson_four ... doesn't matter, but post a link below. Thanks!  Go  Phightins  !  19:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Link should be right here - User:Justin.Parallax/Adoption_Test_Continued

Lesson four
After the mega-lesson that was vandalism, it's time for a mini-lesson on some of the other things you can do with Twinkle. If you don't already have it enabled, you will definitely need to do so for this lesson. It's under the "Gadgets" section of "My Preferences". Aside from it's vandalism tools, there are several other features of Twinkle.

Talkback
Talkback is a feature that allows you, in a single click, to notify a user that you've responded to their message at another page. To use it, mouse over the TW button in the editing interface and select "TB". A window will pop up, that gives you several different options as to what page you're on. All you do is type the name of the page you replied (everything in the URL after en.wikipedia.org/wiki/) and click submit query. If you'd like to link to a section, remember that it's case-sensitive, and type the name of the section. If you'd like to add an additional message, simply type it. It's really easy to use.

RPP
You can also request page protection using Twinkle. Go to whatever page you want to have protected, and click "RPP" under the Twinkle dropdown menu. It will ask you some information, give it to the window, and click submit.

AIV
You probably figured this out in the last lesson, but you can report a vandal to administrators, or a username to WP:UAA, using Twinkle. Click "AIV" or "ARV", depending on what type of page you're on, and fill out the information that you're asked for. Noticing a pattern?

Tags
The next feature we'll discuss is how to add maintenance tags to an article. We'll cover this a bit later in a lesson on working the encyclopedia, but the gist of it is that you select whatever maintenance tag you'd like, and click submit. This feature is located under "Tag" (a truly creative name, I know).

Rollback
The most common feature you'll likely use in Twinkle is the "rollback feature". When looking at a diff, you have three options to rollback an edit: Rollback AGF (assume good faith) which is in green and should be usually be used with newer editors who are acting in good faith, but whose edit wasn't constructive. This type allows you to leave an edit summary, which we'll discuss more in depth later, where you can explain why you're rolling it back. Also, there's simply Rollback which is in light blue. This should be used the most often when rolling back an edit; again, you can (and should) leave an edit summary. Lastly, there's the Rollback Vandal choice, which as soon as you click reverts the edit leaving an automated edit summary. You should then follow up at the vandal's talk page, leaving a warning template, which you should already know how to do.

Welcome
The last feature we'll discuss is welcoming users. To do this, you can either click the yellow text that says "Welcome" next to a user's name when looking at a diff or you can select "Wel" in the Twinkle drop-down menu. You'll then be prompted to select a welcome template.

Questions
Well, this wasn't that short, but it should be a little easier to grasp. Questions, or are you ready for the test (using that word lightly in this case).

✅ ready to go on!

Test
This test should be relatively easy.

(Use your subpage to post templates using Twinkle)

1.) Q- Leave a talkback template below stating you've replied to my post at WP:ANI.
 * A- [[Image:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   Thank you. Justin.Parallax (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. 5/5

2.) Q- Post diffs of you using each of the three types of rollback.
 * A- Diffs:


 * Rollback AGF-
 * Meh. OK. 4/5


 * Rollback-
 * OK - did you have Twinkle turned on for doing this set of rollbacks? 4/5


 * Rollback Vandal-
 * Fine. 4/5


 * The point on this set was that, for the first one, you click the green "Rollback AGF" that appears to revert an item assuming good faith, the blue "Rollback" for a no faith reversion, and "Rollback VANDAL" for vandalism ...

3.) Q- Post a diff of you welcoming a new user.
 * A-
 * Good. 5/5

4.) Q- Post a maintenance tag of your choosing on this page.
 * A-
 * Good. 5/5

5.) Q- Review Question- Ha ha! Cite a situation in which you'd report a user to administrators as a vandal.
 * A- I'd try not to personally do this unless I'd either seen a series of edits which are intended clearly to offend or disrupt articles. Cursing or posting offensive material on an article may be an indication, but so could a string of nonsensical text, but these may simply be posted by accident, so I would prefer to wait until there's a few or a series of examples, either noticed by myself or others. I'd ensure that warnings were given beforehand, and see if the behaviour continued. If it did not, I'd take no further action. If it did, though, or the user replied by biting to the editors who had left warnings and so on, I'd then report.
 * Sounds fine. 5/5

✅ I think, although I must admit I struggled with this one. Mainly on the first.


 * Grade: 32/35
 * Comments: I need to revamp some of these questions. Sorry for any confusion. Next lesson forthcoming.

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?

✅ No questions so far. Former admin of a few forum boards, so this shouldn't be a problem at all!

Test
This isn't a really easy topic to test, but we'll give it a go nonetheless !

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


 * Editor assistance: This is useful for getting an unbias opinion from people with experience, who will not take any specific action or step in, but may be helpful for voicing ideas or possible means to defuse a situation.
 * Good. 5/5


 * Third opinion: Can be used as above, but may be used to request direct actions involving stepping in to assist with the situation, can also be done via boards and with project groups.
 * Third opinions are slightly more formal, and give a mechanism by which an uninvolved editor can offer an opinion. 4/5


 * Mediation: Available in both informal and formal varieties depending on the severity of the issue, this is best used for ongoing or long-term issues that don't seem to be resolved after the above two have been attempted.
 * My lesson is outdated - MEDCAB does not still exist, but Requests for Mediation does, and is a great way for editors experienced in dispute resolution to assist. My fault for still having MEDCAB (the informal way) in my lesson. 5/5


 * Request for comment: Similar to third option. But open to a larger number of editors who can attempt to assist with a conflict. Useful if a situation has 'got out of hand' and needs a few level heads to bring things back in line. Can also be applied with a specific user, but only if nothing else has worked at all.
 * That pretty much hits it. 4/5


 * Arbitration: When everything has gone wild and the wiki has caught fire and people are sending death threats and your monitor is crying from the pain, this is when things are truly crazily out of hand and editors are sending killer robot androids out over the internets at each other, these guys will then step in and smack some sense into the place. I'll stick with the earlier options, personally, and just not be around if things ever get this bad.
 * Well, ARBCOM is not a terribly pleasant place, but our arbitrators are excellent, so you overstate a bit :-). 4/5

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- I'd say so. It's a bit of a judgement call. But I'd consider the behaviour to be, as they're just reverting each other's edits over and over. I wouldn't wait for three to count this as, but that's just myself. By the second edit, they know what they're doing.
 * There do not have to be three reverts for something to be edit warring, that said, three reverts is the "bright line" at which point an offender can and usually will be blocked. In some cases, however, on contentious pages, we have a two, one, or even zero revert rule, after which an editor can be blocked ... these are often imposed as ArbCom sanctions. 4/5
 * Part B) How should they resolve this dispute?
 * A- They should get onto the talk page and discuss it. Simple as. Justify why they feel their edit is correct. Negotiate an even and mutually agreeable solution if there is one available.
 * Right on. 5/5

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- I'd sic my dogs on him. Woof. Although before I did so, I'd ask him to remain civil and not to bite, I would explain clearly and carefully why I feel the way I do about the subject, and point him to any appropriate help pages that might clarify more clearly. I wouldn't give him any warnings at this stage though, as I'd rather assume good faith for now and discuss things in a reasonable manner, leaving any warnings for repeated insulting replies.
 * Perfect - unfortunately, you'll find, many cannot keep their cool as well as that. 5/5

4.) 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- It has pretty colours. But yeah, I quite like it. I'd include maybe a little figure of a person climbing up one side though, perhaps with little lines next to it to illustrate how to 'elevate' the situation higher on the pyramid.
 * Good thoughts. 5/5

5.) Q- Remember that dispute I mentioned in lesson two. Feel free to refresh your memory. How would you handle that now?
 * A- I'd unleash the hounds on them both! Woof! Also, if I was there to negotiate a truce between them, I'd outright ask each of them "Why do you think your edit is the better option?" because that will mean that they are backing up their opinion with a reason, rather than just giving a knee-jerk 'no it isn't'. Once we have those stances on the table, we can make some progress. Try to urge them both up to the upper tier of the pyramid, as it were.
 * Sorry; poorly phrased question. I meant the one from lesson two; the one I mentioned would come up later. If you can follow up on that, we should be good to go - nice job! (0/5 pending follow-up, ) -  Go  Phightins  !  20:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'd probably resolve it in the same way. The chap felt that he had lost all of his work, so I'd still be working on assuming good faith and do my best to encourage him to do the same. My initial answer would remain the same. First I would rectify the problem, and I would explain to the new user how I was doing so, so that he knows how to do so in future. I'd explain that I was attempting to help fix up the few minor errors, explain that making pages is often a collaborative process, and generally ask him to understand that I was working in good faith. I'd -very politely- encourage him that, in future, it is generally better to reply to people in polite and respectful ways, like I would be attempting to do with him, as this helps to defuse conflicts. And give him some tea. One of those little talk page pictures of a cup of tea. And biscuits. Hopefully he'll like that. Justin.Parallax (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. 4/5

✅ Justin.Parallax (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Score: 45/50 if my math is correct, for a 90%
 * Comments: Nice job; moving right along.  Go  Phightins  !  16:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Lesson six: Deletion
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  !

✅ Ready to rock! Justin.Parallax (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Test
Hi Justin. I'm JHUbal27, a former adoptee of Go Phightins! Here is the test. JHU bal  27  19:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

1.) Q- Explain a scenario in which you'd use PROD instead of sending an article to AfD.
 * Broad questions
 * A- Eh, I'd use it when I don't want to opt an article for speedy deletion, but when I don't think that deleting it would cause a large subject for debate. Maybe for very negligable items on some obscure part of fandom type of material, for example. Say someone posts up an entire article on a background character without any speaking dialogue in a Star Wars film.
 * Good, in other words, PROD should be solely for uncontroversial deletions that do not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. 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- In the situation you've described, it sounds like the person who made the page may not be someone who is either able or willing to corroborate the significance of the article. I'd speak with him to see if he can explain why he feels that the article is noteworthy and if he has any sources that he can cite to show it. If he doesn't, I'd reinstate the tag, or at very least post it to AfD if it didn't seem to hold up to standards.
 * While your reactions could be justified, if the creator of the page was the only major editor, it should be categorized as speedy deletion criterion G7 (author blanks the page). 3/5

3.) Q- Why should you wait 10-15 minutes before tagging an article for CSD under criteria A1 or A3?
 * A- Article could be mid-construction. Under A1, it could be a work in progress. Under A3, it could be a work not yet started. And under A2, it could be that English isn't the creator's first language and he is posting in his native tongue, to translate into English once he's able to babelfish it. Best to assume good faith in all points.
 * Right on. 5/5

1.) Scenario I
 * Hypothetical scenarios
 * A- I'd nominate this for Speedy Deletion under category A7.
 * Perfect. 5/5

2.) Scenario II
 * A- I'd nominate this for Speedy Deletion under category G1.
 * Exactly. 5/5

3.) Scenario III
 * A- I wouldn't speedy delete this. I don't know anything about orchestral music, for all I know this person could be internationally recognised. I doubt it, but still, I want to assume good faith. I'd instead PROD this one. That should give the creator of the article enough time to list why the person is reputable. After all, there are no sources listed at the moment, it really would need some in order to stand.
 * The best option would probably be WP:BLPPROD, because as you said, we have no idea if he is renowned, especially with a common name like "Mike Smith", a google search is likely to turn up little, so the burden of proof lies with the individual who introduced the content. 4/5

4.) Scenario IV
 * A- Personally I wouldn't nominate this for deletion. It has sources, although it's poorly structured. A lot of it does seem to be copy-pasted from sources and I'd question the notability of the article in itself. Personally, I would put a Multiple issues maintenance tag on the page, and list what I'd suggest for it. I know this may not be the type of answer you're looking for, but you did ask how -I- would handle these, and this is how I'd do it.
 * Don't worry about what I want, note what you would do, and what you would do, in this case, is correct. Merging or cleaning up to create a decent quality stub might be better answers, however, at least you did not choose to pursue deletion. 4/5

On the above four, I'm assuming that you're asking what speedy deletion criteria I'd be using, because you don't state what we're to do with the scenarios. If you're looking for something else other than what I've done, just let me know.
 * Sorry, yes. How would you handle it if you came upon this article ... wondering how the directions that used to be appended there got lost.  Go  Phightins  !  11:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

✅ All done! Justin.Parallax (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Total: 30/35 (86%)
 * Comments: You seem to have an adequate grasp of our deletion policies, particularly related to speedy deletion, however I think you could use a little more experience in some of the more borderline cases. Check out the log at WP:AFD and read some deletion debates. That should help. Deletion is admittedly confusing, so don't fret.  Go  Phightins  !  21:59, 17 December 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.

1.) Q- Why did you start editing Wikipedia? Why have you continued to do so?
 * A- It's a step on my goal towards world conquest. First I rule wikipedia, then the world. I mean hey, it may be just because I like the idea of it and think the site gets an unfair amount of flack for being inaccurate so I hope to do something to contribute towards that, but I prefer my world conquest idea.

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 pseudonym?
 * A- Justin is my name. I'm shockingly original like that. The rest is derived from the embodiment of fear, in the Green Lantern comics. Because I'm terrifying. Boo.

3.) Q- What is your primary interest area about which you'd like to edit?
 * A- Things I find interesting to me as a person. The area I live in, comic books, foreign films, horror literature, roleplaying games. The fact that I can remain impartial and critical about things I enjoy is a huge benefit.

4.) Q- Do you have any future goals as far as something you'd like to do on Wikipedia?
 * A- I'd like to put together a few articles on things that I remember that aren't present. I've done one thus far, a movie that was set in Glasgow where I grew up called 'Urban Ghost Story', so things like that. I've also got a bit of a pet peeve for when you search for a book, film or tv show, and are redirected to the author or actor's page - what's the point in that? I'd like to fix up things like that, definitely! (also, world conquest)

✅

Lesson eight: Copyright
Sorry for the delay, and thanks for the info; that's always interesting. Here is your next lesson.

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.

I'm a little uncertain on the general and specific standards of use as mentioned in points 5 and 6. Also it's mentioned that fair use varies from country, I'm a Brit so which country standard dowe use? Justin.Parallax (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally, since Wikimedia Foundation servers are in America, we follow American laws pertaining to copyright; the laws, if I am correct, are rather similar anyway.  Go  Phightins  !  23:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's cool. And the general/specific standards? Justin.Parallax (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Any advice on the general/specific standards? Justin.Parallax (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically, what it says above - the fair use criteria are what they are, and we have some great "image gurus" that are persnickety about ensuring appropriate fair use, and can help if you have specific questions. I am not an expert, but have a working knowledge, and generally boldly do what I think meets the policy ... if there is a problem, a guru will undoubtedly help :-)  Go  Phightins  !  15:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, I'm ready for test questions! Justin.Parallax (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2014 (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.

1.) Q- Is Wikipedia truly free? This is an opinion question
 * A-

2.) Q- List three times when you can upload a picture to the Commons.
 * A-



3.) Q- You find music displaying this licence (non-commercial). Can we upload it to Commons?
 * A-

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-

5.) Q- What is a derivative work?
 * A-

6.) Q- Can you upload a press image of Barack Obama?
 * A-

7.) Q- What about a press image of a man on death row?
 * A-

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-

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!)