User:Matticusmadness/Adoption School

Hi, and welcome to your adoption school. By the time you've completed the tests and tasks here, you should have a good working knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and processes, and should have no difficulty understanding and dealing with 99% of the the things you'll encounter on this site. You can ask me questions on my talkpage at any time if you aren't sure about anything here, and I also welcome suggestions for ways of improving this course.

You can complete the sections in any order; let me know when you've finished one and I'll mark it and close it for you. Save for a few cases, there are generally multiple ways to answer the questions; not many of them have clear right/wrong answers. Although I'll always try and give a reason for each mark, the basic responses you'll see are:
 * ✅ Good answer; interprets policy correctly and shows a sound understanding of the issues involved.
 * Incomplete/insufficient answer; whilst partly correct, there are better responses to this question.
 * Poor answer; shows an inadequate understanding of the policies and guidelines concerned.

Have fun!

Wikipedia is governed by a large number of policies and guidelines - don't worry, you aren't expected to know all of these when you start out (or even after being here for a while!). All of these rules, however, stem in one way or another from Wikipedia's fundamental principles, which are known as the Five Pillars. Learn these and you can hazard an educated guess at all the rest. Please take a few minutes to read through the following pages:
 * Pillar 1: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
 * Pillar 2: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view
 * Pillar 3: Wikipedia's content is free to reuse
 * Pillar 4: Editors should be civil in their interactions
 * Pillar 5: There are no firm rules

Pillar 1: The exact reason we're all here. To make an encyclopedia.

Pillar 2: So it basically means if you're here to advertise or not write with neutral intentions then there's the door. I got it.

Pillar 3: The good old CC-BY-SA if i'm not mistaken.

Pillar 4: This is more common sense than a Wikipedia specific, but some people lack common sense...

Pillar 5: I admit when I first saw 'there are no firm rules' I had to click to see where it led but yes 'Ignore all Rules' I was already aware of. If dropping a rule means Pillar 1 is followed then drop the rule, common sense applies.

MM (Report findings)  (Past espionage) 20:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  12:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup
The Random article button (located in your left-hand sidebar menu) is very useful for locating articles that are in need of improvement (although I find that 90% of the time you get a random article on either an obscure village in the mountains of Pakistan or a little-known Eastern European football team...). However, there are easier ways to locate articles that need attention.

When editors come across a page that needs to be improved but they are unable to do so themselves (due to time constraints, lack of sources or just because they don't feel like it) they will often tag it with a cleanup tag. As well as placing a notice at the top of the page to say what needs doing, this also has the effect of listing the article in one of several cleanup categories. You can access most of these categories here.

What I'd like you to do is this: First, locate an article in need of cleanup. I'd suggest something fairly straightforward, like a page that needs copyediting for spelling and grammar (there's a full list of pages tagged thus here). Make three improvements to the page; these can be minor changes to word order, wikilinks, punctuation or typo fixes, I'm not fussed. When you've done this post a link to the article here - type the page name and enclose it in double square brackets, like this:.

Now go to the page Commonly misspelled words and select a word from the list there. Put the incorrect spelling of the word into the Wikipedia search bar at the top right, prefacing it with a single tilde, like this "~mispeling". The tilde means that, rather than searching for an article titled "Mispeling", the search engine will instead return a list of pages which contain the word "mispeling". You can now open each of these in turn, locate the typo, and change it to the correct spelling. Post here when you've fixed three typos in this way.

Cleanup/Copyediting: 17th PTV Awards

Commonly Misspelled words:

MM (Report findings)  (Past espionage) 20:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All good (but just in case you run across it IRL, it's "behaviour" in British English, right?) Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  12:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion
Often you'll encounter pages that are not suitable for Wikipedia, for one reason or another. Have a read of this essay, and then refer to the deletion policy before tackling the questions below.

Speedy deletion
You may want to check the specific policy on speedy deletion to respond to the following test.

Below are a number of articles which may meet one or more of the speedy deletion criteria. For each example, say whether the article is an appropriate candidiate for speedy deletion, and which criterion it should be deleted under (some may be eligible under more than one). If you don't think it should be speedily deleted, say what you would do instead (if anything).

Assume unless otherwise stated that all of these are found in article space.

1. Danille Stross A. Smells like CSD to me.
 * ✅ Yes - A7 or G3 would also have been acceptable.

2. Waichi A. An Article on the wrong project. Herp Derp it's WP:CSD, also if I were handling this i'd be a pal, run the page through Google translate and leave a talk page message for the page creator in the language that Google Translate turns up explaining that there are other language Wikipedias.
 * Leaving a message for the creator is a nice idea, kudos for that. However, A2 applies to articles which duplicate existing pages on another language Wikipedia, which this does not (da-wiki's got nothing on the guy). There is a CSD criterion that applies, but it's a tough one (none of my previous adoptees have got it), so you get a mark for this question if you can offer an appropriate non-CSD course of action instead.
 * Meh. I'd AfD it with the rationale that it's not in English and that the language's wiki provides nothing on it. Well played, I just saw that this is 16 under 'Non-Criteria'.
 * AFD could go either way, depending on who !votes, but the most appropriate thing to do would be to tag it with and take it to WP:PNT - where, hopefully, someone would spot that it's a direct translation of Sugiyama Waichi and tag it with ...

3. Zack de Vries A. My money says WP:CSD under 'Individual'.
 * ✅ Some admins might decline this one - there's a plausible case for significance, based on a substantial body of work - but you'd probably get away with it. There is a better tag, though; (unsourced BLP) is probably the most appropriate thing to slap on the page.

4. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barry Ross This example should be treated as an AfC submission A. Don't feed a fool, teach him how to eat. This seems like another WP:CSD to me.
 * Not only is there sufficient context to identify the subject (a children's entertainer from Hartlypool), but A1 is only applicable to pages in the article namespace - AFC submission are located in the Wikipedia Talk namespace, and so shouldn't be tagged with anything other than G- (or in a few cases, R-) CSD tags. There are other things you can do with AFCs, though...

5. Alfreld Herchkerck A. Alright i've had half a dozen looks at the CSD for Redirects and i've come to the conclusion that we're dealing with a WP:CSD, it may be possible to kill it with WP:CSD with the right rationale though.
 * It's in article space and redirects to article space - that's not a cross-namespace redirect, so R2 doesn't apply. (If it redirected to User:Alfreld Herchkerck, that would be a case for R2). There is an appropriate CSD tag you can use, though.
 * Oh I see now. It's a nonexistent page relying on a nonexistent page. WP:CSD yes?
 * Mais non. It's a redirect to an existing page - Alfred Hitchcock - but it's such a ridiculous spelling that R3: Implausible typo would apply.

6. Blgah A. God help the person that made that in main space. (Or quickly block them) Anyway this one fails multiple criteria. WP:CSD, WP:CSD , WP:CSD and almost fails WP:CSD.
 * ✅ G1 on its own would suffice, though.

7. Portland Square Bombing A. WP:CSD on the basis that it does not actually say what the subject of the article is in the text.
 * Just because the first line doesn't follow the format "Article title is a..." doesn't mean there's no context - the references alone provide context. Care to take another stab?
 * Well the sources for a start are in need of doing correctly. That aside though there's no inline citations and no actual name of the blitz. Any chance an admin would buy WP:CSD or is that the long shot my instinct says it is?
 * It needs fixing up, certainly, but not deleting - and it's clearly not a test edit, so it's not going anywhere under G2. AFD is a possibility, but my personal instinct would be to clean it up or leave it alone.
 * As an additional note, don't fall into the trap of assuming that G2 is a sort of magic bullet for anything that doesn't fit under the other criteria. It's as specific as all the others, even if it might be a little more open to interpretation. If in doubt, don't slap a G2 tag on an article in the hopes that the reviewing admin might be a fervent deletionist whose fingers are blunted from stabbing the "Delete" button so many times - just add an appropriate cleanup tag and leave it alone.

8. User:Chest McFlink This example should be treated as a userpage A. It's small considering what i've seen of such before but something tells me we can stick WP:CSD to this one.
 * G11 would be a 50/50 call for me on this - there's no clearly promotional content, but depending on the user's other edits, some admins might delete it. There are at least three courses of action which would be more appropriate; you'll get full marks for any one of them.

Aha! A9's all about music talent with not enough talent for the Wiki, is WP:CSD one of those three Mr Shui?
 * It's a userpage, so none of the A tags apply (they are only applicable to articles, not talkpages, project pages, userpages, templates etc.). You should instead have listed this at Miscellany for deletion, left a warning for the editor, or simply done nothing at all and moved on to other things.

9. Tsutomu Yukawa A. I beleive that this one would be WP:CSD judging by the fact that it only says that he is just another martial artist and not how he stands out from the crowd.
 * Unless they're all Facebook, Bebo and Twitter pages, multiple sources pretty much automatically rule out A7. In this case, no admin is going to accept A7 as a reason for deletion.
 * oddly enough i've noticed that source 2 isn't exactly right (his philosophy that until his purpose is served he can't be killed is lovely though), i'm not seeing a direct link to 'Ueshiba Sensei' but i'm convinced that it's not Tsutomu and therefore the source is invalidated. I can't check source 1 because I don't know Romanian, Source 3 seems fine-ish, Source 4 however is somewhat flawed as it states a number of years but that can mean less than or even dead on 5 years and not over 5 years.

If this had to go to deletion I would say that at best this could be an AfD scenario with the hypothesis that 2 of the 3 sources that can be read fail to satisfy the claims that the article puts forward and "Source four is in Romanian but it doesn't let you copy and paste it so I can't translate it". The outcome still balances on what anyone who knows Romanian brings out though.
 * ✅ Yes, putting this up for AFD would be the most appropriate process for deletion.

10. Johnny Awesome A. That last line made me scowl to be honest. Anyway all i'm seeing in here is some not-so-obvious WP:CSD, I also ran a check for A7 but it seems to satisfy that in my opinion.
 * ✅ Since it's obviously a hoax, A7 and G3 would also apply. G10 has the advantage of flagging the page more conspicuously for admins, though, so it's likely to be dealt with faster.
 * Maybe obviously for your big brain. but not for us learners. XD

Thanks to Worm That Turned for constructing some of the pages linked to.

Proposed deletion
Proposed deletion (PROD) is Wikipedia's way of dealing with articles that are patently unsuitable, but that don't fall under any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Examples might include: non-notable books or films, personal essays, non-notable albums by notable artists, news stories, dictionary definitions and how-to guides. Basically, anything that's covered by What Wikipedia is not but isn't covered under speedy deletion can be a viable candidate for PROD.

BLPPROD is a subset of the proposed deletion process that applies only to unsourced biographies of living people. Biographies of deceased people, or biographies with sources, are not subject to BLPPROD.

Read through the policies linked above, and then answer the following questions:

1. Why do we have a specific deletion process for unsourced biographies of living people? A. Because if the information in a Biography of a famous living person is wrong then it just causes chaos, for us and for readers. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia that checks the facts, if there's no facts backed up about someone 'famous' then we may as well not have a page about that person because they are not famous by Wikipedia Standards.
 * Chaos we can live with - libel or other real-life consequences, not so much. Our policy on biographies of living people requires sources for any controversial claims, and, by extension, for any article on a living person. Failure to do so can lead to serious problems; check out Wikipedia biography controversy for a quick Wiki-history lesson. BLPPROD is not about notability (being "famous by Wikipedia Standards") but about verifiability.

2. You come across an obviously inappropriate article (it's an unsourced personal essay) and tag it for deletion under PROD. The page's creator removes the tag. What would your next step be? A. If a PROD Fails to cut the bread and it still needs to go then it's time to call on AfD to take the helm.
 * ✅ Yes, assuming that there's no appropriate CSD tag then AFD is really the only option here.

3. You encounter a biography of a living person which contains four paragraphs of text, but only one reference (which does little more than verify the subject's name and existence). What tag would you place on the article? A. I believe a regular BLPPROD could jump on the boat here with a mention of BLP1E in the rationale.
 * 'Fraid not - one reference, of any quality (even something like Facebook) negates the use of BLPPROD. Whilst the BLPPROD tag can only be removed if at least one reliable source is added, you can't stick it on any article that has any sort of sourcing. BLP1E isn't necessarily relevant here.
 * Oh it's a regular PROD then. Whoops.
 * Assuming that there's a good reason for deleting it, yes - but don't forget that you can always tag pages for cleanup (or better yet, improve them yourself!) as alternatives.

4. Why were,  and  incorrect applications of the BLPPROD tag? A. I do believe that for the first one there was enough sources to cover how much information was in there.
 * As for the second the concern was that there was no references but you can see one in the references section.
 * Third one took some thinking, I then remembered that Twinkle's BLPPROD warning is that it should only be applied if the article has zero references, external links or some other thing.
 * The fourth one draws the following error.

''One revision of this difference (530213137) was not found. ''This is usually caused by following an outdated diff link to a page that has been deleted. Details can be found in the deletion log.''
 * ✅ Yes - even though they didn't have inline citations, all of these had sources - that's what you need to look for when using BLPPROD.

5. An unsourced BLP is tagged with, and the tag is removed after the addition of two sources. The page is still unsuitable for Wikipedia (it concerns an individual who's clearly only notable for one event, and is not likely to be notable for any other reason). Can you legitimately apply a regular template to the article? A. So i've thought this one out over a Chicken Korma and Rolos and I believe that this is a yes with a mention of WP:BLP1E in the PROD rationale.
 * ✅ Very nearly a for the frankly horrific idea of mixing chicken korma with Rolos, but yes, you can add a PROD to a page which has previously been BLPPRODded.
 * XD Please sir, do not judge by food habits however big your urge.

Articles for deletion
Articles for deletion is a process for dealing with cases where an editor feels that an article should be deleted, but that article is not suitable for speedy deletion and a proposed deletion would be or has been contested. In other words, you would use AFD if you think that other editors might disagree with the decision to delete. At AFD, articles are put up for discussion for (usually) one week, and any editor is free to comment on whether the page should be deleted or not.

When nominating an article for AFD, it's important to explain your reasoning. If the page could have been deleted as obviously non-notable, you need to explain why you think it isn't notable, and why you are using AFD instead of PROD or CSD. If your reason for deletion is anything other than notability, you need to show which policy it violates.

When !voting in an AFD discussion (we use the term "!vote" instead of "vote" to indicate that AFD isn't a majority vote; decisions are not made purely on headcount), it's important to note (and preferably link to) the policies under which you feel the article should be deleted, and explain why it does not meet those policies. Whilst a lot of AFDs contain !votes that read, "per nominator", these are not given much weight by the reviewing administrators. If you want your opinion to count, you need to offer an explanation for your reasoning. There are also many common arguments to avoid; making any of these will not help your case.

It is a great help to the reviewing administrator if you keep your comments in an AFD discussion concise and relevent to the discussion. Tangential arguments and long screeds tend to derail the discussion, and can make it very difficult to establish consensus.

No quiz here, but instead, I'd like you to comment at five AFD discussions, and link to them below.

1. Articles for deletion/Dictionary of Man
 * ✅ Sensible !vote, and I follow your reasoning (despite the quotations...)

2. Articles for deletion/Nanoinformatics
 * ✅ Well spotted!

3. Articles for deletion/List of Filipino academicians and scientists trained in Germany
 * ✅ Your argument is simple and concise - there's not much more to be said.

4. Articles for deletion/Ban Heung Lau
 * ✅ You could afford to be more overt in your argument here - it's clear to me that you're referring to WP:PROMO, but you should spell it out to avoid any confusion.

5. Articles for deletion/Remmina
 * ✅, though you could have done a bit more research into the source.


 * One thing to note on just about all of these - it's both conventional and technically useful to put your bolded !vote at the start of your statement, not partway through. It helps other contributors to follow who's arguing for which position, makes it easy for closers to do a swift head-count if they need to, and allows the AFD stats tool to track your !voting record correctly.

Vandals
Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, not all the edits that are made are constructive - some, in fact, are deliberately disruptive and need to be reverted. Please have a read of this essay and this guideline, then answer the questions and perform the tasks below. There's no time limit for this, it's more important that your work in this area be accurate than fast. If you aren't sure whether it's vandalism or not, it probably isn't.

Good faith and vandalism
A: If the insertion includes clear gibberish or something similar to 'BERNIE LOVES THE D' then you have clear Vandalism. A good faith edit is generally something that makes sense but does not follow guidelines such as it does not contain a source.
 * Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
 * Close, but not quite. Vandalism doesn't have to be unintelligible or flagrantly profane to qualify as vandalism. One could, for example, add a perfectly grammatical and encyclopedic sentence to an article which deliberately gives incorrect information, or indulge in the ever-popular habit of changing height and weight information for sportspeople. Equally, a non-native English speaker might attempt to improve an article by a adding misspelled and effectively meaningless sentence - they would not be vandalising Wikipedia, because their addition was a genuine effort to make the encyclopedia better. Motivation is the key element to deciding whether something is vandalism or not - edits which are intentionally disruptive are vandalism, edits which are intended to be improvements (whether they actually are or not) are good faith. It can be a difficult call to make, but that's how you have to work it out.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ratchet:_Deadlocked&diff=prev&oldid=563275784
 * Please find and revert three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. Please warn the editors with the correct template and give the diffs of your revisions below.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ratchet%3A_Deadlocked&diff=554752534&oldid=554743344 Don't be surprised if it looks like both diffs basically fix the same thing from two different users.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple&diff=prev&oldid=562124125 I say this one because this user was attempting to act in good faith and let everyone know that they were retiring, unfortunately they put the tag in the wrong place.
 * ✅ Yep, all good.

Warning and reporting
A: To give them a fair chance to change. And that's how real life works, you warn before you punish.
 * Please answer the following questions
 * Why do we warn users?
 * ✅ Yes, that's the main reason. We also leave warnings to provide a record for other users - and admins.

A: If what was said would in reality attract police attention.
 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
 * That's a very novel way of looking at it... Do you know, I'm going to give you a ✅ for that, despite it being entirely original. 4ims can basically be used when:
 * the edits suggest an imminent and ongoing disruptive intent
 * the user has made four or more edits which are clearly vandalism, without being warned at all
 * the edit in question is so deeply egregious as to require revdel or oversight

A: Report them to Administrator Invertention of Vandalism.
 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
 * ✅ Bang on.

- It turns out Karen Gillan is a popular hotspot for bored American schoolchildren looking to vandalise. They're back at school today and the article comes under heavy fire. (read Sockpuppet investigations/SmillanIsCanon) Doesn't really seem like a coincidence to me.
 * Report 2 users to AIV and post the diffs below. Be sure to follow the guidelines and only report users where necessary; do not report simply for the sake of this task.
 * ✅ Bonus points for filing an appropriate SPI.

Dealing with difficult users
A:Because it'll just encourage them to cause more trouble.
 * Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?
 * ✅ Pretty much, yeah. Deprived of attention, the average troll withers and dies...

A:Now this one's tricky to explain. You just know when someone is trying to be snarky and troll you, it's one of those difficult to explain things. On the other hand someone asking you why you reverted their edit or why you deleted their page is clear. These days they'll just claim something like "why did you revert my edit my info was right" am I right? There's a big difference between a troll and someone just flat out claiming "Why did you delete my edit, it was right!" Am i making any sense here? After a few comments something in your head clicks telling you that they're trying to troll. That's pretty much the best I can explain it.
 * How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?
 * Not the most coherent answer ever, but I know what you mean - sometimes, the troll-o-meter just goes off in your head. It's often a good idea to check out their contribution history; if there's a pattern of useful edits, give them the benefit of the doubt. If their only contributions are provocative statements on talkpages, chances are they've lived under a bridge at some point...

Protection
A: If the vandalism just keeps on coming from IP Addresses or accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed.
 * In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
 * ✅ Yes, that's the primary reason we apply semi-protection.

A: If there's a legal threat or if there's a content dispute that isn't breaking any rules but is clearly causing trouble. Many articles that have an active ANI Discussion end up fully protected. A regular article is never indefinitely fully protected.
 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
 * Legal threats don't require full protection (they tend to take place on talkpages, rather than articles anyway), and content disputes are perfectly legitimate if they don't break any rules. Full protection is applied to deal with:
 * active edit wars involving autoconfirmed accounts
 * ongoing vandalism from multiple autoconfirmed accounts, where blocking isn't a viable option
 * articles under deletion review (if the reviewing admin deems it necessary)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=next&oldid=569985218
 * Correctly request the protection of one page (semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

And then it was checked by an admin. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=next&oldid=570004230
 * ✅ Ker-ching! Looks like a good call to me.

Reliable sources
All of the information in Wikipedia should, at least in theory, have been published already in some sort of reliable source. Deciding what is and is not a reliable source can sometimes be a tricky process. Please read Identifying reliable sources and comment on the use of sources below, answering the following in each case: Note that the text quoted is not taken from the article - links to the articles in question are provided only for context.
 * 1) Does the source meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources?
 * 2) Does the source verify the text?
 * 3) Does the source count towards the topic's notability? (note that not all sources which meet the criteria for reliability automatically help establish notability)

Kylie Minogue
Article text: Kylie Minogue was the headline act at the 2012 Malasian Grand Prix. Source cited:
 * 1. New partner of Kylie's FaceBook page? heh, nope. ✅
 * 2. definitely not as I don't see it specifically saying that anywhere. ✅
 * 3. I believe it as a yes because a concert at an internationally known event is going to boost their notability.
 * Yes to the first two answers, no to the third - notability requires "significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources": if the source is (as you've already established) not reliable, then it can't count towards notability.

Incisoscutum
Article text: Placoderms like Incisoscutum engaged in penetrative sex and gave birth to live young. Source cited:

1. It's got book references backing it so think it has a note for checking its facts, therefore, yes

2. Negative. It said that they may have had the tools to do the job, but it doesn't exactly say that they did it.

3. YupaYayYoYes The source hits reliability thresholds, so I don't see why it couldn't be used for a different part of an article on it that the source mentions. It just doesn't work for this quote.
 * ✅ Yes to all three (the question regarding verifiability is a bit of a strict interpretation, but if something like this ever came up at WP:DRN, that's the sort of level of reading you'd need to use).

Mohamed H.A. Hassan
Article text: Hassan is the Executive Director of TWAS. Source cited:

1. It's a PDF, these things can just be made by anyone, it doesn't look like it's had much time and effort put into it either, therefore i'm going to go with no.

2. Yes because well it does state it at the top.

3. And not a reason in sight to believe that it can help. so sadly, nopeitty nopeitty nooo.
 * It's genuinely the guy's resume - if you back track through the URL you'll find he's part of the Group of 77, and this is hosted on their website. For factual information like this, a self-published source (like a resume) is acceptable, so it does count as a reliable source. I'm not sure how you thought an unreliable source could verify anything at all, but since this source is appropriate for the information being reported, it does indeed meet the requirements of WP:V.

Arthur & George
Article text: The book explains that Conan Doyle argued successfully that Edalji's nearsightedness would have prevented him from committing the crimes. Source cited:

1. Now we're talking! This thing's sourced! Then again it is a PDF, but it's sourced! Therefore you guessed it, yes I believe it's reliable.

2. yup, it's there, at the sop of the pecond- wait what, derp, sorry, hurhur. at the TOP of the SECOND page. Heh, me getting all tongue twisted there. You get what I mean though.

3. ''YesAYepADoo'. The other two hit it on the head, and considering this thing has two pages that information can be yanked out of it like a tooth when the patient's under antiseptic (sorry if I put any images in your head) it can be quite the contributor to an article on the subject.
 * It's a reliable source, alright - but it doesn't verify the statement above, which is about the book Arthur & George, not the actual events. The source says nothing about the book's content; it only describes the case that inspired the novel.
 * I pray you aren't studying to be a dentist - you won't knock out many patients with antiseptic...

This Providence
Article text: The band's Christian morality is clearly expressed through their song lyrics. Source cited:

1. It's an Amazon review. So, nope.

2. 'A Kid' 's review? That hardly gives a way to trace back who gave the info, therefore nope.

3. Honestly if this is the typical kind of review this thing has then nope.
 * ✅ You'd be amazed how often this sort of thing gets used as a reference, though...

Mount Erebus
Article text: The mountain is named after the personification of darkness in ancient Greek mythology. Source cited:

1. Yes on the simple basis that it references a few pretty large libraries with regards to the photos in the source.

2. Nope. Skim reading the texts mentioning Erebus (personification of darkness) I see nada on a mountain let alone anything that says anything of a mountain being named after the being.

3. Checklist. Does it flag as anything in WP:NOT? Doesn't seem to. does it seem to hit GNG somehow? with this one source it seems okay. Not forgetting that Greek mythology is actually kinda popular as it is, I shall be thinking yes on this one.
 * ✅ I'm assuming in your answer to part 3 that you're referring to its use in proving notability of Erebus, rather than the mountain. If so, you're right on all three counts.

Ami Suzuki
Article text: Suzuki was born on February 9th, 1982. Source cited:

Seth Kimbrough
Article text: Kimbrough's earliest memory of BMX riding is the day that his brother taught him the "bunny hop" technique. Source cited:

Markup
Wiki syntax can be, frankly, a right pain in the proverbials when you start editing. After a while, it becomes second nature - so much so that I now use it instinctively in places where it doesn't work, like emails and Word documents - but it takes time to become familiar with the nuances. Below are a list of markup tasks you can play about with to help increase your understanding. Most of the necessary codes are available at the cheatsheet.

Format the words on this line into bold text. ✅

Format the words on this line into italic text. ✅

Create a level 2 header for this line.
✅

Create a level 3 header for this line.
✅


 * Indent this line. ✅


 * Indent this line one level further than the previous one. ✅

Outdent this line. Use.

Put the following quote into a separate block:

"This is a quote which I'd like you to block off from the rest of the text on this page."
 * Use  or the  template.

Turn the following into a numbered list: 1. Item one

2. Item two

3. Item three

4.Item four

Turn the following into a bulleted list:
 * Item one
 * Item two
 * Item three
 * Item four

Make the text on this line red.
 * Right idea, but the internet was programmed by Americans - use "font color" rather than "font colour" and it'll work (you don't need the inverted commas around "red", by the way). The template would be equally good.

Make the text on this line small. ✅

Create a link to the page on Barry Manilow. ✅

Create a link to the "Health" subsection of the Barry Manilow page. Make it display on this page as Things that have gone wrong with Barry. ✅

Create a link to the Wikipedia policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. ✅

Make this link: http://www.britannica.co.uk display on this page as Encyclopedia Britannica. ✅

Add the Like template to the end of this line. ✅

Make the picture of Emperor penguins at File:Emperor penguins.jpg display on this page as a thumbnail. Give it the caption: ✅

Create a two column table. In column one, titled "Things", list the numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4. In column 2, titled "Stuff", list the first four things that spring to mind.
 * Halfway there, but your rows are wonky (and you haven't closed the table at the bottom, which will affect any text underneath). The correct format would be:


 * Copy and paste the above code into a sandbox and see the difference. There are other ways of formating tables, but this is just about the simplest one.

Copyright
You probably already know that copy-pasting text from elsewhere is strongly frowned upon in Wikipedia. It's one of the things newer editors often fall foul of. Copyright, because it has legal ramifications in the real world, is one of the most important things to get right here, and for the same reason, is also a bit of a minefield. I've prepared a short quiz to test your understanding of the major issues, however you'll need to do a bit of background reading first. The principal pages that cover copyright issues are as follows: All the answers you're likely to need should be in one or more of these pages.
 * Wikipedia's official copyright status and licensing
 * Wikipedia's policy on copyright violations
 * Wikipedia's policy on image copyright
 * Instructions on donating copyrighted material

1. You find a book on Amazon that appears to be reusing the text of Wikipedia articles - in fact, they proudly announce it on the cover! The book costs £20.00. Are they allowed to use other writers' work to make money in this way? If so, why? If not, why not? A. Yes, indeed they are. All of the text and images on Wikipedia are allowed to be used for practically any purpose, and that includes commercial. Though mentioning Wikipedia in itself is probably going to put that thing on the fast track to the 'decline' stage of the Product life cycle knowing the widespread reputation of WP...
 * ✅ You'd be surprised how well those things sell, actually...

2. Is it ever permissible to copy and paste text from another website to Wikipedia? If so, under what circumstances would this be allowed? A. Almost never however if the website owner has completed the process that starts with mailing the OTRS or has changed their copyrights to allow their website's text and images to be used for any purpose under a license that Wikipedia uses then it's good to go in an article.
 * ✅ Yes, that's correct.

3. A new user uploads a picture of Tony Blair from a newspaper article in the free newspaper The Metro. The newspaper has national circulation, and is read by millions of people daily, so the image is already readily available; it's also easy to find on Google Images. Is this picture:
 * a) Acceptable under "fair use"?
 * b) Acceptable because it's in the public domain?
 * c) Acceptable because it doesn't cost anything - the newspaper is given away for free?
 * d) Acceptable for some other reason?
 * e) Unacceptable because it's under copyright?
 * f) Unacceptable for another reason?

Please give a brief reason for your answer. A. a) I would believe so. b) Public Domain is fair game if i'm not mistaken. c) That's definitely not a good enough reason. d) Other reason dependant on if it follows the CC-BY-SA License. e) Yes unless it has the 'fair use' license, is in the public domain or works with CC-BY-SA. f) Depending on the reason, but if it is asking if there are other reasons then yes.
 * I think you've misunderstood the question, sorry. It's multiple choice; I'm asking you to pick one answer from the above options. Have another go.

Oh. well in that case I think it's e) because the proper copyright belongs to either the newspaper or the photographer depending on if the photographer released the copyrights to the newspaper.
 * ✅ Precisely.

4. You find a new article that appears to contain a block of text (about half the article's content) which has been copied directly from a non-free source. The rest of the article seems to be original material. What do you do? A. Leave a message on the talk page pointing out the massive problem of how much of the text is copyright text and that it shall be removed from the article and then take it out of the article with the Edit Summary Copyrighted text removed. The article does not qualify for [[WP:CSD#G12}}.
 * ✅ Textbook answer.

5. An editor adds some text from a website that he owns the copyright to. He has issued a statement on the original website saying that, "the content of this site can be freely used on the English version of Wikipedia". Is the text acceptable? If not, why not? A. Tricky tricky tricky. I'm going to be picky and say No because they have only released it for use on the English Wikipedia when the text that is used on Wikipedia needs to be possible for anybody to use.
 * ✅ Yes indeed, another perfect answer.

6. A user uploads an image that he has created, a Microsoft Paint version of a diagram from a copyrighted work. His version is all but identical to the original, but is definitely his own work. Can this image be used on Wikipedia? A. Has the user labelled that all of their contributions are available under one of the licences that Wikipedia uses? If so then Yes. If not then No.
 * 'Fraid not. The creative copyright still remains with the artist and/or publisher of the original image. This is an example of a derivative work; if no significant changes are made, no new copyright is created.
 * On another note it was after you marked that I properly red the question and realised that no major changes had been made to it. It's more common sense than anything that if you make no major changes then the work is still the same. This isn't the first time not reading the question properly has gathered me a scolding and probably won't be the last.

7. Some images may be better off being uploaded to Wikimedia Commons rather than Wikipedia. To which project would you upload the following:
 * a) A screenshot from Doom 3'.
 * b) An image from Flickr that had been released under a CC-BY-SA licence.
 * c) A scan of a medieval painting, dating to 1223.
 * d) A photograph of Ian Botham that you took yourself at a cricket match.
 * e) A picture of your hand, taken by your cousin (he says he's happy for you to use it however you see fit).
 * f) A low-resolution copy of a company logo.

A. Now normally i'm not one to give a half a level comment but from what I see it seems like it would be the best option to upload all of them to Commons as the arey a lot less strict on this. f) is aan exception as i'm sure that because of the low resolution it could work with Wikipedia.

a) Commons (Seems clear to me it would work better there) b) Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA Licence) c) Wikipedia (Copyright only goes back 100 years) d) Wikipedia (I can release it under a licence) e) Wikipedia (This one is a head batter on if I now own the copyright) f) Wikipedia (Low resolution samples are allowed)


 * What you need to consider here is whether the image is free or copyrighted but available under fair use. For free files, upload to Commons; for unfree but fair use files, upload to Wikipedia. a) and f) should be uploaded to Wikipedia, everything else should go to Commons. You don't own the copyright on e), but given that you could easily get suitable permission if required, it would be better off at Commons. Just don't fall out with your cousin.

8. The subject of an article, a minor local celebrity, has uploaded a promotional photo of himself, taken at a book signing, to use on his Wikipedia page. Does he own the copyright to it? Can it be used on Wikipedia? A. Unless he somehow took the picture himself he does not own the copyright and it cannot be used on Wikipedia even with his say so. The photographer shall have to grant him the copyright before he can go through the process of making it fair use.
 * ✅ Yes, perfect.

9. A new editor wants to use text from her website on Wikipedia. Assuming that the text is suitably impartial and that she isn't affiliated with the subject, what would you advise her to do in order to allow Wikipedia to use her work? A. My advice would most definitely be that she should inform the OTRS Team that she is willing to let Wikipedia use her website's text and such. I don't know the OTRS proccess after that so I cannot comment further.
 * That's the right idea - the full process is outlined at WP:DCM, if you want to take a look.

10. An editor adds the text, "Carter's discovery of the tomb created a sensation in London, where he was widely celebrated. Banners were hung in his honour, and a national holiday was declared," to the article Howard Carter. The source provided for this text (a recently published book on Carter's life) contains the wording, "His discovery of Tutankhamun's grave created a sensation back in London, where he was heavily feted. People hung banners from their windows in his honour, and the Queen declared a national holiday." Has the editor committed a copyright violation? A. If it sounds promotional chances are it was copied from a website right? It also seems the size of a paragraph so unfortunately yes.
 * It is a copyvio, but not for the reasons you think - this is an example of close paraphrasing: changing some of a source's wording without fundamentally altering it. This is a bit of a grey area, but the sentence above is clearly too close to the original to stand.

Whilst mastering the technical nuances of Wikipedia can be a challenge (one you've hopefully overcome in the above sections), it pales in comparison to navigating the delicate web of interaction between Wikipedia's users. Although our primary goal - one we should never lose sight of - is the construction of the world's greatest encylopaedia, the nature of the project means that you will have to communicate with other editors in order to get things done.

Politeness
The most fundamental policy governing user interaction is Civility, one of the Five Pillars you learned about earlier. Basically, you are expected to communicate with other editors in a respectful manner, assume that they are acting in good faith and avoid insulting or otherwise attacking them. Remember, behind every IP or ridiculous username is a real person, and it's that real person who is being hurt by insults, accusations and abuse hurled their way.

1. What would your response be if another user called you a "blithering imbecile"? A. Point them towards No Personal Attacks and if they persist in showing a lack of manners refer them to an Administrator.
 * ✅ Although for something that tame, you're probably better off just ignoring it, if there's no previous pattern of incivility.

2. A source you added to an article is removed with the edit summary, "Removing crappy reference". Is this a personal attack? A. Not Neccessarily. Since the Edit Summary focuses on content rather than the person whom put the reference in it does not meet the 'personal' part.
 * ✅ Exactly.

3. In the heat of the moment, you refer to another editor as an "idiot". He posts this template on your talkpage and reports you to the administrators board. You respond to the report at the admin board - what do you say? A. "First of all i'd like to clear the dust on the side. The user left me a 4im which I don't believe is right for this situation, can we get a Third opinion on this? That aside I admit that my actions were out of order and willingly accept any sanctions to better myself and satisfy every side."

Note: I couldn't give all of the information that I wanted to because there is no specification on if 3RR has been violated or mentioned in the dispute.
 * ✅ Pretty much, though WP:3O is a content dispute tool and wouldn't be relevant here. The apology was really what I was looking for.

Assuming good faith
In learning about vandalism, you will have come across the idea of a "good faith edit", i.e. an edit that doesn't actually improve the article, but was made with the intention of doing so. The same applies to other editors' posts in discussions. Whilst it may seem that User:X is belittling you at every turn and is clearly biased and/or incompetent, there's actually a strong likelihood that he believes the same thing of you, and is doing his best to protect Wikipedia from what he sees as your problematic editing. In the same vein, don't automatically assume that a comment you find upsetting was intended to cause an upset - other users don't know you, and they don't know what sort of thing will push your buttons.

1. You add a large amount of sourced text to an article, which another editor removes. When you discuss it on the talkpage, the editor argues that your source "was written by an incompetent sot" and implies (but doesn't directly state) that you must be equally incompetent to have used it. How do you respond? A. By pointing them towards Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks as i'm quite sure there is a Personal Attack in there and seeking a Third Opinion on the matter.
 * ✅ Yes, getting another opinion might be preferable to getting embroiled in a heated debate on the subject, especially if you're convinced the source is sound.

2. You encounter a new editor who is removing sourced content from a biographical page, claiming that it is disrespectful to the subject to include it. How do you explain the situation to them? A. Throw them a in it with this additional message. "It has been noted that you have been removing content that by our rules should be there. If the content has [1] or any other number by it then it is in the rules not to remove it. People who do not follow these rules quickly end up not being allowed to edit, I ask that you avoid removing content that has [1] or any other number next to it. Thank you kindly."
 * That's not necessarily wrong, but it's not the best course of action by a long stretch. You would need to check the sources first, to make sure that a) they meet WP:RS and b) the verify the information. There are also elements of WP:BLP to consider; for example, WP:BLPCRIME suggests leaving out material relating to an unsecured conviction, and applies even if the material is sourced. Suggesting that the editor universally avoids removing content just because it has a reference is actually quite bad advice; referenced content can and should be removed in a number of situations. In short, it depends what they're removing; their edit might well be perfectly correct.

Consensus
Decisions on Wikipedia are made based on community consensus. This means that we are largely unconcerned with issues of right or wrong, true or false, correct or incorrect - what matters on Wikipedia is what the community decides. Because not every user can be involved in every possible discussion, we have policies and guidelines that have developed widespread consensus for use, and these serve to provide the opinion of Wikipedia editors in general. For example, in an Articles for deletion discussion or a Request for comment, only a handful users will participate - but by quoting relevent policies (such as WP:What Wikipedia is not) they are able to convey the established view of the Wikipedia community as a whole.

For this reason, local consensus does not override policy - if you can get three people on a talkpage to agree to include a link to your fansite on your favourite actor's article, that doesn't mean you have the authority to override the policy on external links.

That said, it is important to get agreement from the community for any potentially controversial edit or action you wish to make, even if you believe it to be in line with policy. If you make such an edit and it gets reverted, the appropriate response is to discuss it with the user who reverted you, ideally on the article's talkpage so that other users can comment too. Only when there is clear agreement (not necessarily unanimous, but definitely obvious to an outside observer) to include your revision should you go ahead with it.

1. At Articles for deletion, a discussion has taken place in which User:X proposes deleting a page (because after much searching, no-one has been able to locate suitable sources for it) and User:Y proposes keeping it because they have found it useful for a research project. Four other editors chime in to support the Keep vote, all with the rationale, "per User:Y, page is useful" or something very similar. You are the admin closing the discussion; do you close it as Keep, Delete or No Consensus, and why? A. It's a clear Delete because User Y was using I Like it as his reason and that reason fails policy. If any of the Keep users provided something that follows the rules however that would be a different story.
 * ✅ Yes, good answer. For extra points, you could have mentioned in closing that the AFD should be treated as a PROD for the purposes of undeletion or recreation - since only one editor has argued for its deletion, we would usually regard it as being effectively an uncontested PROD.

2. On an article talkpage, three users disagree with your addition of an external link to the subject's official site, even though such a link is allowed under the External links policy. No other editors have supported your position. What do you do? A. State the policy that this link is allowed under and tell them to check Special:Log for a currently active Administrator and ask them to review if they are not satisfied with my explanation of the policy that it meets.
 * ✅ Yes, that's a decent solution. Other possibilities include requesting a 3O, starting an RFC or (my personal favourite) accepting that just because a link can be included doesn't mean it has to be - if a number of other editors oppose your changes and the changes are not actively required by policy, the simplest solution is to not make those changes...

Resolving disputes
If two or more editors are unable to agree on some aspect of an article, and no consensus seems to be possible, then continuing to argue on the talkpage is somewhat futile. Recognising this, Wikipedia has developed a number of processes for resolving such disputes. In rough order of escalation, these are:
 * Third opinion. If only two editors are involved, they can request that another uninvolved editor examines the dispute and gives their opinion. This is not binding, but the fresh perspective can sometimes break the deadlock.
 * Request for comment. Starting a Request for comment (RFC) on the article's talkpage will attract other editors who are not involved with the dispute - basically, a whole load of third opinions. RFCs are usually constructed around a simple yes/no proposal, e.g. "Should content about the subject's hairstyle be included in the article", which editors either support or oppose. RFCs typically invite comment for a month before closing. The results of an RFC are not technically binding, but they are generally considered to be indicative of consensus and so are usually adhered to.
 * Dispute resolution noticeboard. Reports posted on the Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) are viewed by numerous editors who will try and mediate the disagreement. The DRN is often used for disputes which are more complex than the simple support/oppose mechanism of an RFC, such as disputes involving accusations of sockpuppetry, multiple pages or several interrelated content issues.
 * Mediation. The Mediation Committee is a small group of trusted editors who will formally oversee a structured debate on a disputed issue. All involved parties must agree to mediation, and are expected (though not obliged) to abide by any successful outcome.
 * Arbitration. If all other options in resolving a dispute have been exhausted, the case can be brought to the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom). This is a panel of editors (almost always highly experienced administrators) who have been elected by the community to provide a final resolution to disputes. Decisions made by the Arbitration Committee are binding, meaning that users who edit in defiance of an ArbCom ruling may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned.

No questions on this section; the above is provided purely for your information. Hopefully, you'll never have to use any of it!

Section Done MM (Report findings)  (Past espionage) 09:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Related pages

 * Article creation for beginners
 * References for beginners
 * Anti-vandalism for beginners
 * Images for beginners
 * Templates for beginners
 * Deletion for beginners
 * Twinkle for beginners