User:Rcsprinter123/Adopt/Arctic Kangaroo

=Arctic Kangaroo=

Hi Arctic Kangaroo, welcome to your adoption page. I'll post lessons below and you ask any questions you like about it, and then we move on to the informal test and the next lessons after it. The first one is below. You can give messages like you would normally do on a talk page here, but don't forget to sign.  Rcsprinter  (gossip)  @ 16:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Five Pillars
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to eloquently sum up what we're here for. Once you get your head around these five pillars, you will be a Wikipedian and a good one at that. All 5 are covered in my adoption school, though at different lengths. Be aware that I don't know everything and I would doubt anyone who said they did.
 * Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
 * Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
 * Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
 * Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
 * Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.

How articles should be written
The articles in Wikipedia are designed to represent the sum of human knowledge. Each article should be written from a neutral point of view – personal opinions such as right and wrong should never appear, nor should an 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 whilst "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, I would not expect it to be authoritative on their full size equivalent.

A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This is a very rare exception – so self publishing is generally considered a no-no. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are considered unreliable by default. One interesting sidepoint is on self-published sources talking about themselves. Obviously, a source talking about itself is going to be authoritative, but be careful that the source is not too self-serving – the article really should not be totally based on a direct source like that.

Mainstream news sources are generally considered reliable... but any single article should be assessed on a case by case basis. Some news organizations have been known to check their information on Wikipedia – so be careful not to get into a cyclic sourcing issue!

There's a lot more about what makes a source reliable here.

Questions?
Any questions or would you like to try the test?

Five Pillars
This test is going to be based on questions. Some questions will have right or wrong answers, whereas others are just designed to see if you are thinking in the right way. There's not time limit - answer in your own words and we'll talk about your answers.

1:) Q - You have just discovered from a friend that the new Ford Escort is only going to be available in blue. Can you add this to the Ford Escort article and why?
 * A - No, unless my friend stated that he/she got this piece of info from a source (which I have to verify and find valid) Hop n hop  (on the arctic ice) 15:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's quite correct.  Rcsprinter  (whisper)  @ 20:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

2) Q - A mainstream newspaper has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
 * A - For the paper's article, yes. For the racism article, probably yes as well. Arctic   Kangaroo  11:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, sure. Make sure you draw a clean boundary for 'racist'.  Rcsprinter  (whisper)  @ 20:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

3) Q - You find an article that shows that people in the state of Ohio eat more butternut squashes than anywhere in the world and ranks each of the United States by squashes per head. Interestingly you find another article that ranks baldness in the United States and they are almost identical! Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia? Perhaps the baldness article or the butternut squash article?
 * A- Fine as long as there is a reliable source. Arctic   Kangaroo  11:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Same as with everything! This is a silly thing really, there's no relation.

4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on ITV?
 * A - In my opinion, the BBC News is a reliable source for The Troubles. BBC is world-recognised and The Troubles takes place in the UK, which is where BBC HQ is. As for ITV, should trust it too, since it is another UK news provider. But, if the content in ITV and BBC's news on the same thing is different, we should try to discuss it, or take the BBC news. Hop n hop  (on the arctic ice) 01:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's good, they are reliable sources.

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
 * A- Ben and Jerry's website will probably be more appropriate as it is more "serious". Facebook can just be for casual chat and sometimes things just get messed up. Hop n hop  (on the arctic ice) 01:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Half and half. You got that Facebook is most definitely not reliable; but I would also say the B&G website is going to be a primary related source, promotional, and biased. So I wouldn't really use that either.

6) Q - A "forum official" from the Daily Telegraph community forums comments on Daily Telegraph's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?
 * A- No, he may be bias. Arctic   Kangaroo  11:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, his opinion may be company-backed/enforced.

7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://adnams.co.uk/ being used in a beer related article?
 * A - Yes, for example we are talking about Beer A, we should use Beer A manufacturer's page as a source. Hop n hop  (on the arctic ice) 01:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A primary source again, but usually acceptable.

8) Q - Would you have any issue with using the About Us page on Xerox as a source for the history section of the Xerox article.
 * A - Where is the About Us page? Arctic   Kangaroo  11:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's at http://xerox.com/about-xerox/.
 * Yes, it is pretty biased. Arctic   Kangaroo  14:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

9) 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 - Not us, but the editor. Just discuss it with the editor, ask him for a source (since he's the odd one out).  Hop n hop  (on the arctic ice) 01:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously they are never going to be right - you are correct.

You did great on the first test, Arctic Kangaroo. Plenty more to go!  Rcsprinter  (whisper)  @ 20:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikiquette
WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made.

I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.
 * Assume good faith - This is fundamental and I'll be going over it again in dispute resolution. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. EVERY ONE. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
 * Sign your talk posts with four tildes ~ . The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment.
 * Try and keep to threading, replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, : . I cover more about this in my basics of markup language lesson - let me know if you'd like to take it. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.


 * Don't forget to assume good faith
 * There are a lot of policies and guidelines, which Wikipedians helpfully point you to with wikilinks. Their comments may seem brusque at first, but the linked document will explain their point much better than they may be able to.
 * Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated. For example, if someone nominated one of the articles you created for deletion, I'm sure you'd want to know about it, so if you are doing the nominating make sure you leave the article creator a notification.
 * Watch out for common mistakes.
 * Did I mention that you should assume good faith?
 * Comment on the edits. Not the editor. I'll cover this more in dispute resolution.

Questions
Any questions?

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

1) Position A?
 * A- Rod's mate

2) Position B?
 * A- Rod

3) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
 * A- No. The editor could have read a lot of Wikipedia policy/function pages (the ones starting with "WP:") or been an active IP contributor before he decided to contribute using an account.

Above 3 questions: Arctic   Kangaroo  10:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Completely correct with all three questions! I'll move you to the next module.  Rcsprinter  (deliver)  @ 09:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright
Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. It's one of the most important lessons I teach, because not adhering to it can lead to a ban from Wikipedia. I'm hoping to take you back to basics and will be focusing on images. However, a lot of the same concepts apply to other media files and even text too! I'll mention a bit more about that at the end of the lesson.

Glossary
There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. If you are having trouble with any, here's a quick reference.

Image Copyright on Wikipedia
Ok, now if I use a term that's not in the glossary and I don't explain, feel free to slap me. Are you ready for this? Ok. Take a deep breath. You can do it.

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

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

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

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

In 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.  Arctic   Kangaroo  09:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Umm...if I have a photo which I have taken myself, and I want to upload it, but just uploading it to help Wikipedia, but don't want others to use the work, then can I list it "non-free" or place a " Arctic Kangaroo" on the picture? Arctic   Kangaroo  13:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You could do the latter of those, but not the former because that requires it to be used, and just a notice asking for no usage would work. It is unlikely anybody will want to use right away anyway, especially if its not something that requires further illustration.  Rcsprinter  (whisper)  @ 11:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you explain further what you mean by "just a notice asking for no usage would work"? Because I don't really get what you mean. Arctic   Kangaroo  12:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just write a sign that asks people not to use it.  Rcsprinter  (chat)  @ 20:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Test
Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
 * A- Of course. It's "The Free Encyclopedia". Arctic   Kangaroo  12:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I was rather hoping you would go a bit deeper on this one. Free to use and free images.

Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
 * A- As long as we display and declare the "Free" or "Non-free" use properly and abide to the guidelines/policies. Arctic   Kangaroo  12:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Only free files (or copyright expired) to Commons. You wouldn't be allowed a non-free one there!

Q3) You find music displaying this licence (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
 * A- I don't think music is used in articles, so the answer should be no. Arctic   Kangaroo  12:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's right, bang on.

Q4) A user uploads a poster which is a composite of all the Beatles album covers. Can he do this? It is his own unique composition.
 * A- No. Copyright infringement if he does it himself without permission. Arctic   Kangaroo  12:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly correct.

Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
 * A- Yup. Arctic   Kangaroo  12:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually you shouldn't, because press images aren't the last resort when one can take a photograph themselves, which is possible because the Popenis quite public.

Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
 * A- I think it should be OK, like how pictures of the two brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon recently are being used in their article. Arctic   Kangaroo  12:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I like it.

Q7) You find an article that matches a company website About Us page exactly. What do you do? You check the talk page, and there's no evidence that the text has been released under WP:CC-BY-SA
 * A- Nominate it for speedy deletion. Anyway, that's original research, which isn't allowed. I also believe the companies would have copyrighted their own website. Arctic   Kangaroo  12:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly, or remove all the copied text. Copyright infringement is not acceptable anywhere.

Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
 * A- Assuming you are referring to the text in an article, the answer is no. There should be no original research on Wikipedia. Arctic   Kangaroo  12:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Q9) A final practical test... Go. Have a snoop around some wikipedia articles, see if you can find an image which is currently being used under "fair use". Come back and link to it (using File:IMAGENAME. You must get the : before the File name, as we cannot display the image here!)
 * A- File:Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) on Kapok (Ceiba pentandra) in Kolkata W IMG 4297.jpg Arctic   Kangaroo  13:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * But is File:Female superb fairy wren-edit1.jpg considered so? Arctic   Kangaroo  13:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Incorrect - both of those images are to be found on Commons, which is exclusively free images. Look for the fair use tag on the description page, and the categories for an image.


 * A moderate result for your test there, next lesson coming up. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt (message)  @ 21:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very like to end up in a dispute. This becomes more and more likely as you get into more contentious areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more evocative the subject - the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious. I'm going to go through the different methods of dispute resolution there are on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth taking.

Simple Resolution
No. I'm not expecting you to back down. You obviously believe what you are saying, and there is nothing wrong with that. What you can do though is attempt to resolve the dispute. How??? I hear you ask.

Firstly assume good faith, remember the person you are in a dispute with is also trying to improve the encyclopedia. They are not trying to deliberately damage the encyclopedia. Try to see things from their point of view and see if you can both come to a compromise.

Keep calm. There's no urgency to the change you are trying to put in or take out, it will wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to fight by editwarring to keep your preferred version there is a large chance that you will get nowhere and face a block. So, instead follow Bold, Revert, Discuss - one editor makes a Bold edit, which they feel improves the encyclopedia. A second editor Rerverts the edit as they disagree. The two (or more) editors discuss the matter on the talk page until they come to an agreement or proceed along Wikipedia's dispute resolution process.

When it comes to the discussion, I want you to try and stay in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right. You've heard the phrase "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" right? Well, this pyramid explains the different forms of disagreement. Attacks on the character of an editor is never going to help anything. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the editors argument and respond to that.

If you think about what you are saying and how the editor is likely to respond you realise that you have a choice. Your comment will generally go one of two ways 1) it will address the editors argument and put forward a counterargument which the opposing editor will be able to understand 2) It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama.

Accusations of attacks, bad faith, WP:OWNership, WP:VANDALISM or any number of negative suggestions are going to fall into (2). If there are issues with one of these problems, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, walk away and have a cup of tea. Play a game of "racketball". Whatever you do to calm down and just not be on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia dispute resolution process
If the simple techniques don't work (and you'd be amazed how often they do, if you try them), Wikipedia does have some methods of dispute resolution

Assistance
If you want someone to talk to but not necessarily step in, there is an WP:Editor Assistance notice board. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the situation.

Third opinion
You can get someone uninvolved to step in and give an opinion on a content dispute. WP:3O has instructions on how to request a third editor to come in and discuss the situation. Another option to get a third opinion is to go to the project noticeboard associated with the article to ask for an opinion (the talk page lists which projects are associated with the article). Finally, you could leave a message at a relevant noticeboard - WP:SEEKHELP

Mediation
If the issue won't go away, even after a couple of people have weighed in, you can try Mediation. There are two processes here. Informal (WP:MEDCAB) and formal (WP:RfM). The editors at each specialise in sorting debates.

Request for Comment
You can use WP:RfC to draw community discussion to the page. You are likely to get a larger section of the community here than a 3O request. There is also an option to Request comment on a user. This is rarely necessary and should not be taken lightly. Only after almost every other route of dispute resolution has been taken should this happen - and it requires at least two editors having the same problem with one editor to be certified.

Arbitration
I really hope you'll never see this place in a case. It's the last resort, the community has elected it's most trusted willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated cases. Have a read of WP:ARBCOM if you like, but try not to end up there.

Reports
If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards that you can get some help.

Remember: you could be wrong!
You could be acting against consensus! But as long as you are open to the possibility and have been sticking the top 3 sections of the pyramid, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Just make sure you are aware that at some point you might have to realise you are flogging a dead horse.

Any questions?
Questions about any of the above?


 * Nope. I'm ready.  Arctic   Kangaroo  15:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Test
1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss?
 * A- It means that if we think that a piece of info in the article is not right, or there is anything we want to add, we have to be bold as editors and just add it. Then, if someone comes by to revert our edit but we disagree with their reason(s), we should start a discussion on the talk page of the article. Arctic Kangaroo  (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 15:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

2) Assuming that person A puts in an edit, person B reverts, person A reverts... and so on, but both stop short of WP:3RR (the bright line)... who wins the edit war? Trick question alert!
 * A- Nobody. Arctic Kangaroo  (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 15:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, while edit wars aren't "won", this could have done with some elaboration.

3) What is vandalism?
 * A- Vandalism are bad-faith edits, in which the vandal hopes to disrupt the smoothness of Wikipedia and harm it. This may include adding false links, blanking, and nonsense being added to the page. It may even include adding false info to a page when it is all too obvious that it is too false to be a good-faith edit. Arctic Kangaroo  (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 15:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?
 * A-
 * Editor assistance: Want to talk to somebody about a content dispute, but probably don't need him/her to step in and give an opinion.
 * Third opinion: Want somebody uninvolved to give an opinion on the dispute.
 * RfC: Ask the Wikipedia community for their opinions.
 * Arctic Kangaroo (  ✉  •  ✎  ) `


 * Well, good test overall. Some of your answers are quite short, but an understanding of the topic showed. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt (rap)  @ 22:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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. Your nomination earlier today should have gone there. Each XfD page outlines the process for each, which often is somewhat complicated. Deletion review is where users can appeal a deletion debate, and follows similar procedures.

Before anything is deleted, though, one should always check to see if there is any alternative. There are a wide range of cleanup templates that can be used to indicate an article needs attention (templates which we'll cover in more detail later, I'll just give you the link for now). One could always take care of the cleanup themselves. It's also possible there is usable content in the article that can be merged elsewhere, or it's just under the wrong title and needs to be moved. Wikipedia's purpose is to include as much information as possible, so deletion should always be a last resort.

Questions
Any questions or would you like to try the "Test"?


 * Should be ready. Arctic Kangaroo  (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 05:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion
1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD?
 * A: PROD is used for an article which can most likely be deleted without any discussion, but does not fall under any of the CSD criteria. AfD is used when deleting the article could be controversial, and thus consensus is used to decide. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 05:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly correct. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt (parlez)  @

2) Most WP:CSD categories are fairly clear, but one of the more difficult is A7. Describe a situation where A7 would be appropriate :)
 * A: Basically, A7 is used when articles talk about something non-notable. For example I create an article about my friend, who is just any ordinary student which has not achieved anything great and notable. Another editor can tag the article for A7 deletion when he passes by it. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 05:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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

3)First
 * A: Tag for CSD A7. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 05:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

4)Second
 * A: Tag the page for AfD, since the person is notable even though there are no references. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 05:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

5)Third
 * A: Tag for CSD G2. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 05:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

6)Fourth
 * A: Tag for PROD, since it is not shown how the event is notable but it is not part of CSD A7. The sources are also unreliable, and don't show the notability of the event. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 05:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

7)Fifth
 * A: Tag for CSD G3. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 05:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup, those are pretty much all appropriate for the articles. Next lesson? Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt (parlez)  @ 19:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

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. I'll get onto vandalism in a separate lesson, so don't worry too much about that now.

Policy and guidelines
Everything we do in wikipedia is governed by policy and guidelines, but policies and guidelines were written down once and discussed at length. Oh yes, almost every policy and guideline is based on consensus, leading us right back to the start of this lesson. Policies don't change much, 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." My personal interpretation is that this a catchall to remind us that we're not in a bureaucracy, that the important thing is the encyclopedia. I've never had to implement it personally, but I do keep it in mind.

Questions
Well, that's that. Do you have any questions on Consensus or policy?