User:Go Phightins!/Adopt/Uncletomwood

Hi Uncletomwood and welcome to my adoption course. It is here, your "classroom", where you will be guided through a series of lessons and tests culminating in a final exam. Though I will be your primary adopter, you should know that my top deputy is Tazerdadog and he may, on occasion, grade a test or post a new lesson or help me on the administrative side of things. JHUbal27 and Jackson Peebles, both previous adoptees, have also expressed willingness to help me out, so they may be around too. But at the end of the day, I am your adopter and will be your primary guide. The first lesson, on the five pillars, is below. Let me know if you have any questions, and we will get started! I look forward to a fruitful relationship and anticipate great success. Your adopter, Go   Phightins  !  19:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Please sign here to indicate you've found your classroom okay: Uncletomwood (talk) 06:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, JHU  bal  27  (student assistant)

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  !

can you explain the neutrality policy/?Uncletomwood (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Neutrality basically means that we have to write all of our articles from an unbiased point of view and cannot take sides in debates. Whether you are writing about a sports team or Hitler, you need to write from a point of view that relies upon and stems from your sources. Go   Phightins  !  10:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and post test.Uncletomwood (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Tom! Go Phightins! is camping, so he will not be able to grade your test until Sunday or later, but here it is. JHU  bal  27  (student assistant) 05:54, 6 April 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-No.I dont know if she is correct so i would check for a reliable sources by googling this information and see if there are reliable sources from national and international dailies and also from the Harvard official website.
 * Correct, verifiability and reliability are the two main issues here. 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-This is an isolated reporting and i would include this only if there is more than 3 or more incidents of racist cartoons or reports.if the issue is reported widely in other papers about the daily telegraphs racist article or cartoon,then i would after consultation with senior editors.
 * Good, the issue here is achieving neutrality. Third party sources could help achieve this. What exactly are senior editors? Do you mean senior editors of newspapers or more experienced Wikipedians? 4/5

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 since I need to take a neutral point of view even if it is proved by one newspaper and that this info is clearly not logically deducible and illogical so i would not include that.
 * You are correct, but check out the policy on no original research. Specifically, the part about synthesizing sources. 3/5

4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
 * A-Answer to 1st question- No since they are rivals in their sectors.(I think!)

Answer to 2nd question-Yes if it is also reported in at least 3 reliable newspapers.
 * Correct for numbers one and two. FOX is not a verifiable or reliable source of information for MSNBC. FOX may have a conflict of interest with Sarah Palin, so you are right to check for other sources. The more reliable sources, the better! 5/5

5.) Q- Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Twitter page a reliable source?
 * A-Never.twitter pages are not reliable due to CoI's and i would look at reliable sources like other newspapers or his website for sources.
 * Correct, but it is possible that very limited statements could be reliable, like a new flavor. Generally, we look for secondary or tertiary sources for verifiability and reliability, like you said. 4.5/5

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-Maybe,if it is also reported in the newspaper and in official Chicago tribune website.
 * Generally, self-published sources are not reliable because they may contain unreliable or unverifiable information. The "forum official" generally is not high enough in ranking to be used as a reliable source. Look for other reliable sources, like you said. 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-I DONT think so.So Yes.I am not able to answer futher...sorry.
 * Yes, but why? Please explain your answer. 2/5
 * Okay. Self-published sources are reliable for information about themselves. For example, "The CEO of Burger King is Bernard Hees." would work and "Our Whoppers are the juiciest." would not.

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-A tough one..Yes i would give him sources from other scientific journals and other reliable sources.
 * Consensus says to use common sense in situations like these. WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE are two essays that offer conflicting opinions on whether or not you need a source to prove the sky is blue. They're fun to read, but I won't take a side! 4/5


 * Grade: 31.5/40 (79%)

Comments
Please answer the follow-up question; overall, you did pretty good, though. Special thanks to JHUbal27 for assisting me in grading. Go  Phightins  !  00:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome! Anytime! I knew I was capable of doing it . Thanks! JHU  bal  27  00:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So as not to leave you in limbo, I'm posting the next lesson for you. JHU  bal  27  11:07, 9 April 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. JHU bal  27

Enjoyed reading it please post the testUncletomwood (talk) 07:16, 10 April 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- Assuming good faith means that we are assuming that the editor is innocent until proven guilty.We must assume that the editors did it in mistake or accident and not in bad faith i.e vandalism.To help,we must talk to them about their edits and not term it vandalism...
 * Good analogy. 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 hear NO ONE CAUGHT THAT TYPO THAT HAD BEEN THERE FOREVER. WOW! how you'd approach this scenario.
 * A-I will try to explain things in a polite positive manner to the new editor and I will also ask my adopter or an experienced admin to also look into the issue.
 * Fair enough; always assume good faith. And I am always available, not always right away :), but am always available to look into issues like that. 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-#|Rod's Mate
 * Right. 2.5/2.5

3b.) Position B?
 * A- #|Rod
 * Right. 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- Not at all,thats what assuming good faith means.He could be super smart and he would have read how to do it or could have received guidance personally from a friend....A sock is a person who is using multiple accounts for bad faith edits.So in short I wont report him,but out of curiosity would ask him if he was a genius????????
 * Good! 5/5

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


 * Grade: 19/20 (95%)
 * Comments: Great! JHUbal, when you're ready, archive away! Go   Phightins  !  19:11, 11 April 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:

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 here.

Post test,but can you give me an analysis of the wikimon sockpuppet case as a case study?I am not able to follow fully?Uncletomwood (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Tom. I will let JHUbal post the test in a moment, but regarding User:The Wikimon, basically here's what happened. We have a policy against sockpuppetry, or the misuse of multiple accounts, and The Wikimon previously edited under another account and was blocked. He came back using this account to evade his block from the other account. When he was here under The Wikimon, I and many others thought that he was becoming a productive contributor; he was even right after you on my adoption waiting list . Then, what is called a checkuser search, was run by a trusted user, User:Timotheus Canens, and it was determined that Wikimon was from the same IP address as his prior account. Timotheus blocked, and several users, including myself, came to Wikimon's defense for, among other things, the fact that he hadn't engaged in any unproductive activity (no edit warring, vandalism, etc.) Recently, Wikimon confessed to being a sock which upset other users (including JHUbal, who rescinded a barnstar) and another administrator User:Yunshui, removed Wikimon's ability to edit his own talk page. The only way, at this point, Wikimon can come back (though he remains adamant that he will not do so) is through what is called the standard offer. Basically, he has to stay away for 6 months and then agree to a mentoring program of some kind as he "re-enters the community", sort of like probation. In any case, I don't see that happening, but that is all. JHUbal, when you please, fire away on the test. Go   Phightins  !  19:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I rescinded the barnstar because I assumed good faith until Soni explained to me why. But GP, shouldn't he find some vandalism edits first? Uncletom, please go to recent changes and find 3 vandalism edits. *HINT* I recommend going to recent changes and hiding logged in users. Assume good faith, but a lot of vandalism is performed by IP's. JHU  bal  27  19:36, 15 April 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-Vandalism is bad editing.It is editing which causes harm and is not constructive.The vandalizing user has negative intentions and uses Wikipedia in a negative way.

2.) Q- What are obvious indicators of a vandalism edit while watching recent changes?
 * A-Editors usually tag such pages,but pages which are blanked and have been moved are indicators of vandalised pages.famous pages also have anonymous IP'S editing it and that can be a indicator also.

3.) Q- What warning template would you use if a user removed or blanked all the content from a page?
 * A-[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Hello, I'm uncletomwood. 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 think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

4.) What if I came to your talk page and called you a !@#$!#$!@#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!@#$!@#$!@#%#$^$%^#@$~#$@#$%!@#$!@#? Then what warning template would you use?
 * A-Ignore at first and then use the stop template for second and at third call my adopter and slap increased level warnings.

5.) What is WP:AIV and when should you use it?
 * A-WP:AIV is the administrator intervention against vandalism page and should be used when vandalism has occurred recently and after repeated warnings.

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).
 * -Posting of wrong information.
 * 
 * 
 * Tom, none of these were really vandalism. Please read the difference between vandalism and test edits. I will show you examples of vandalism if you need them. JHU  bal  27
 * Subtle vs. Blatant

From Go Phightins!
The key question to ask yourself when looking at an edit that may be vandalism is, Is there any chance at all whatsoever that this edit may possibly have been made in good faith, with a goal to try to help the encycopedia? If the answer is anything other than an emphatic no, then it is not vandalism and should not be reverted nor warned as such. When using Twinkle, there are three types of rollback: AGF, regular, and VANDAL. Use AGF if the answer to the aforementioned question is "yes", use regular, if the answer is "maybe" and use vandal if the answer is emphatically "no". Even when reverting AGF, still leave a note on the user's talk page explaining what the problem was and how to solve it in a polite manner inviting them to ask you any questions they may have. Go  Phightins  !  03:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

can you please check Vehicle beacon lights in India,i did some rollback and warned the user.the ip is from jammu and kashmir in india. Uncletomwood (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * GoP, tell me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to cite some policies. First of all, I can see that you have a conflict of interest with this article and I understand you want the information to be correct. That's fine. Second, was it necessary to revert 13 edits? You've been biting the newbie by telling him to back off and essentially caused an edit war. I recommend following bold, revert, discuss. The editor boldly edited, you reverted (13 times) and now you should discuss the issue if you can get a hold of them. None of these were blatant vandalism, but test edits.


 * understood.but i dont think i have a CoI..Will follow BRD.Uncletomwood (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't you try the test again? Particularly look at number 6. Go   Phightins  !  19:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, so vandalism in plain English: Vandalism is any edit that we can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, was made in bad faith, or to deliberately harm the encyclopedia. For example, this edit, though unproductive, could have been made in good faith. Perhaps it's someone who goes to the school just trying to help. Obviously, it still needs to be reverted, but it is potentially constructive. This, on the other hand, is pretty clear-cut bad faith editing. I would have a hard time construing a counterargument to how that was productive, especially when you look at the offending user's talk page history. Does this help? Why don't you try to find an example of clear-cut vandalism as well as an example of an unproductive edit, but that is not vandalism and post them below.  Go  Phightins  !  02:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * []
 * 

Lesson four
''We'll go back to vandalism, but for now, here's a lesson on Twinkle. Even if you know how to use it, I really want you to focus on rollback. Here we go''. JHU bal  27  18:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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). JHU bal  27  18:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ready... Uncletomwood (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Test
This test should be relatively easy.

1.) Q- Leave a talkback template below stating you've replied to my post at WP:ANI.
 * A-
 * ✅ 5/5 Perfect

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


 * Rollback AGF-[] ✅ 5/5
 * Rollback-[] ✅ 5/5
 * Rollback Vandal- [] ✅ 5/5 Though this is not the best example, spam external linking is vandalism and the IP user did repeat it. Good job.
 * DONE!!!!!!!!!

3.) Q- Post a diff of you welcoming a new user.
 * A- User talk:Gymo‎
 * ✅ 5/5 Not a diff, but I'm also not particularly picky, especially because you're a professor (not that this gets you preferential treatment!) - good job, and I'm sure the user appreciated the welcome!

4.) Q- Post a maintenance tag of your choosing on this page.
 * A-
 * ✅ 5/5 Yet another perfect answer. Pretty appropriate choice for this page, too.

5.) Q- Review Question- Ha ha! Cite a situation in which you'd report a user to administrators as a vandal.
 * A-the IP in the Civil Services of India maybe. and the IP in Indian Ordnance Factories Service
 * I'm going to need either a diff or an anecdote/hypothetical situation. What are the circumstances in which you report a user?  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A2-Hypothetical

User: nininininininininna
 * A user who is deliberately and constatly adding incorrect information.
 * A user who blanks pages of wikipedia in order to harm wiki
 * Replacer of false content.
 * Personal attacker
 * Acting as the owner of the articles
 * Defamation

He will recieve warnings of different levels and as he continues to vandalize they will get higher warnings.Still he does not stop I will go to WP:AIV Uncletomwood (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ 5/5 Great! The progression is really what I was looking for.  Good answer.

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? Post the test please Uncletomwood (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

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:Asking or requesting other editors for assistance. Eg. I usually ask jackson or strikeEAGLE to help me out with complex issues.
 * Good. Very informal. 5/5


 * Third opinion: Opinion of third party editor when there is a dispute between two or more editors.This editor must not be pat of the original conflict or discussion.
 * Righto. Request at WP:3O 5/5


 * Mediation: It is a crucial step for resolving a dispute with the help of the Mediation Committee where the committee would debate and come to a consensus about the problem at hand.
 * Not exactly. Usually it is one member of the committee who acts in a one to two capacity. 3/5


 * Request for comment:When an opinion is needed in a dispute or a conflict.Needed to establish consensus on an issue.
 * Right on. 5/5


 * Arbitration:The Supreme Dispute Resolution Committee of Wikipedia.Most complex issues are taken there.Their decisions are final and binding.No Appeal
 * Just like the Supreme Court of the United States. 5/5

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-Yes
 * Yes, though no one violated the WP:3RR. Bold, revert, discuss is paramount in this situation. 4/5
 * Part B) How should they resolve this dispute?
 * A-I had a similar problem,except the IP in my case was a sock puppet and a vandal.Looking at the pyramid they must either use a third opinion or use the talk page to sort out the dispute. If the problem is complex, thy should ask for advice through editor assistance.Next stp if it does no work is MEDIATION and if all this does not work ArbCom
 * Exactly. 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-Use the template "Comment on Content and not the contributor" and also let my adopter and other experienced editors know about this.WP:Notthem
 * Good. Usually, someone else involved in the debate will step in, but if not, you are always welcome to do so. Just be careful not to inflame the situation. 4/5

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-Honestly its brilliant,creatively made.Kudos to the adopter but if i have to change something i would add Characterization of edits where the editors always try to call other editors edits vandalism or something like that
 * Okay, but for the record, I cannot take credit for this, though I wish I could. It is a great resource. 5/5


 * Final grade: 41/45 (91%)
 * Comments: Excellent work! JHUbal, when you please.  Go  Phightins  !  12:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Personal Break
''You've been going very fast and working very hard, so I'll let you go to a personal break. Take your time.'' JHU  bal  27  18:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

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--I started editing Wikipedia as an IP at first in Singapore.Editing pages on economic theories and pages on Singapore.This was just to pass time and a stress buster from my Phd. But when I came back to Bangalore and wanted to create a page I had to create an account and I am hooked on to it ever since.

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-My username comes from Uncle Tom's Cabin.The phrase "Uncle Tom" has also become an epithet for a person who is slavish and excessively subservient to perceived authority figures, particularly a black person who behaves in a subservient manner to white people; or any person perceived to be a participant in the oppression of their own group.My paramilitary training made become an uncletom of sorts.

3.) Q- What is your primary interest area about which you'd like to edit?
 * A-*Telecom related issues

*Indian Government *Malayalam Movies *Hinduism *Christianity

4.) Q- Do you have any future goals as far as something you'd like to do on Wikipedia?
 * A-nothing as of now.keep my nose clean and start some serious editing.

Lesson seven
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 Uncletomwood (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the test. You're lucky I'm awake at 3 AM! I'll grade your test tomorrow. JHU  bal  27  07:12, 28 June 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.

1.) Q- Explain a scenario in which you'd use PROD instead of sending an article to AfD.
 * Broad questions
 * A-Noncontroversial articles that are not urgent but should be deleted in the course of time
 * This is a vague answer, but acceptable. I would like a specific example. 3.5/5

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-It has to be speedily deleted under WP:CSD
 * Corect, but make sure the author is the significant contributor. 4.5/5

3.) Q- Why should you wait 10-15 minutes before tagging an article for CSD under criteria A1 or A3?
 * A-The editor might be working on the article,so its polite to wait a bit to see what the article is going to be like
 * Correct. 5/5

1.) Scenario I
 * Hypothetical scenarios
 * A- CSD A7
 * While this is correct, I wanted to see . 4/5

2.) Scenario II
 * A- CSD G1
 * Correct, this is patent nonsense. 5/5

3.) Scenario III
 * A-CSD A7 Unremarkable person
 * Precisely what I was looking for that time. Non notable musician could work too. However, I'm not picky. 5/5

4.) Scenario IV
 * A-WP:BLPPROD.But i would try fixing it first
 * BLP PROD only applies to biographies of living people, with no sources. This article has sources and is not about one living person. You are correct to try to fix it. 3/5

By my count, that's a 30/35 (86%). Nice work. JHU bal  27  17:00, 28 June 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. Ready Uncletomwood (talk) 07:48, 29 June 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.

1.) Q- Is Wikipedia truly free? This is an opinion question
 * A-In its current stage yes,as it gives knowledge freely.As regards to the subject of the test, use of copyright images is free,but with certain restrictions.Wikipedia needs to remove certain restriction in order to make it completely free.
 * 5/5 (Opinion) GP says that this is an opinion question, so I can't be too harsh, but I would like to add my own input, here. Yes, it is truly free (to some extent).  It gives knowledge freely, as you stated, and the license is lenient enough to allow many other uses.  Use of copyright images is not quite free, however.  It is subject to fair use, when applicable.  Wikipedia cannot necessarily remove these restrictions, as this would violate the rights of the original copyright holders, in many cases.

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


 * Images photographed by me of things that I created myself or of nature.
 * Someone else's pics if he has given me permission and public domain pics
 * 150 year old paintings,statues,and buildings.
 * ✅ 5/5 Yup, yup (though I'd recommend getting documentation), and yup (depending on country, I believe)! Good job.  I really find the chart on Wikimedia Commons/this adoption page helpful when I'm unsure.

3.) Q- You find music displaying this licence (non-commercial). Can we upload it to Commons?
 * A--No as the license is non commercial
 * ✅ 5/5 Correct. You answered the question perfectly, though to elaborate, the reason we can't use a non-commercial license is because WP uses a Share-Alike license.

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 i think as the user didn't take the pics but he only made the collage.
 * ✅ 5/5 Bingo! See WP:FU for more details.

5.) Q- What is a derivative work?
 * A-A work derived from another work
 * Too vague, you're going to have to elaborate. Give me a better definition as well as an example, please.
 * A- A derivative work is a work derived from another work,i.e in copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work.An example is a mona lisa with a mustachio!.


 * ✅ This is exactly right. Good Job.  5/5. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

6.) Q- Can you upload a press image of Barack Obama?
 * A- No as a free equivalent is available and anyone can take pic of him
 * ✅ 5/5 Exactly, and federal pictures are typically (always?) public domain, so the official photographer's pictures would work, as well!

7.) Q- What about a press image of a man on death row?
 * A-if there is no pic in the public domain and there is no other equivalent pic
 * ✅ 4/5 Also try to make sure that you aren't reducing monetary intake from the press by posting that (i.e. by reducing resolution, cropping, etc.), but essentially, yes.

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-Remove the image and ask an admin to delete it as it is copyright violation.
 * ✅ 5/5 Indeed. That's a much better answer than I gave in my adoption test.  Making sure that we don't violate the law is essential.  If you're able, finding a different image is always nice, too, but I think that you answered appropriately.

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!)

File:Elvispresleydebutalbum.jpeg
 * ✅ 5/5 Yes, sir. That picture has a fantastic explanation attached to it, as well.  Good find.

Please fix question #5 before we proceed, though, technically, you pass this test. Since this is so important, I want you to know it perfectly, though. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 14:16, 29 June 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?

POST THE TEST! Uncletomwood (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I already did the derivative work and also did test 3,the vandalism one.Uncletomwood (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Test
Hi Tom, Jackson did request that you revisit the answer to derivative works above, so please do that, but here is your 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.

1.) Q- Explain the differences between a policy, a guideline, and an essay.
 * A-

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-

3.) Q- Can policies change? If you wanted to change one, how would you go about doing so?
 * A-

4.) Q- Explain a situation in which you could apply WP:IAR.
 * A-

5.) Q- Are decrees from the Wikimedia Foundation subject to change from the Wikipedia community?
 * A-